Ancestral Property: Latest Supreme Court Judgments

We often get to hear the term ‘ancestral property’, but the exact meaning of the term remains unknown to most of us. The term has not been defined expressly in any statute, but the Courts have time and again explained the term. In simple terms, an ancestral property is a property which is inherited by a person up to four generation of male lineage i.e., his or her father, father’s father, or great-grandfather by birth.¹ According to Mitakshara Law, the right to ancestral property arises from the birth itself, for a property to be an ancestral property it must remain as an undivided property. Ancestral property does not include self-acquired property, gift, partition deed.²

In Sarvamma v. U.R. Virupakshaiah, 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 136 it was said that ancestral property is inherited up to four generations of male lineage and must remain undivided throughout the period of lineage.

In Gurdip Kaur v. Ghamand Singh, 1964 SCC OnLine Punj 180, ancestral property was said to be a property inherited from father, father’s father or great grandfather.

Here’s a list of Supreme Court’s Latest Judgments on Ancestral Property

• Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, (2022) 11 SCC 520

The Supreme Court held that the self-acquired property of a Hindu male dying intestate i.e., without writing a will, would devolve by inheritance and not by succession. Further, the Court said that such property shall be inherited by the daughter, in addition to the property of the coparceary which was obtained through partition. The Court observed that if a woman dies intestate, then any ancestral property passed onto her from her father would be bestowed upon the heirs of her father and similarly the property passed onto her from her husband’s family would be bestowed to her husband’s heir.

• K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 471

The Supreme Court held that a Hindu father or any other managing member of a Hindu Undivied Family has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a ‘pious purpose’ and what is understood by the term ‘pious purpose’ is a gift for charitable and/or religious purpose. Therefore, a deed of gift regarding the ancestral property executed ‘out of love and affection’ does not come within the scope of the term ‘pious purpose’.

• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1

The Supreme Court held that a woman/daughter shall also be considered as a joint legal heir as a son and can inherit ancestral property equally as male heir, irrespective that the father was not alive before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came into effect.

Ancestral property rights to child born out of live-in relationship

• Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 737

The Supreme Court ruled that even children born from a live-in relationship have the coparcenary right to inherit the family’s property. A child who is born to live -in partners living together for an extended period has rights over the ancestral property of his father.

FAQ’s on latest Supreme Court judgments on Ancestral Property

Q. Is there any time limit to claim ancestral property?

A. Yes, the time limit to claim ancestral property is 12 years. Article 65 to Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a timeline of 12 years, within which an aggrieved person may file a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on proprietary title.

Q. What is the recent judgment of Hindu Succession Act?

A. In Kamla Neti v. LAO, (2023) 3 SCC 528, the Supreme Court observed that it is unfair to deny tribal women right to equal share in father’s property when same right is available to non-tribal women under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Q. What is the Supreme Court judgment on daughter’s share in ancestral property?

A. In Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, (2022) 11 SCC 520, the Supreme Court held that the father’s property shall be inherited by the daughter, in addition to the property of the coparcenary which was obtained through partition. The Court observed that if a woman dies intestate, then any ancestral property passed onto her from her father would be bestowed upon the heirs of her father and similarly the property passed onto her from her husband’s family would be bestowed to her husband’s heir.

In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that daughter shall also be considered as a joint legal heir as a son and can inherit ancestral property equally as male heir, irrespective that the father was not alive before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came into effect.