The Madras High Court has held that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there is no disqualification for a widow to inherit her deceased husband's property merely because of remarriage. The Division Bench comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice C. Kumarappan clarified that the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856, which imposed such disqualifications, has been overridden by Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The Court was deciding an appeal in Malliga (Died) & Others v. S. Shanmugam (Died) & Others, where the second defendant (Malliga) claimed a 1/3rd share in her deceased husband's property. The lower court had denied her claim, reasoning that her remarriage to her brother-in-law (her late husband’s brother) disqualified her from inheriting the property.

The case revolved around ancestral property originally belonging to Chinna Gounder, who settled the property in favor of his sons, including Sevi Gounder, the father of the litigants. Sevi Gounder had three sons, one of whom, Chinnaiyan (the appellant's late husband), passed away in 1968. Upon Chinnaiyan's death, the plaintiff and defendants laid competing claims over the properties.

The Trial Court concluded that Malliga's remarriage to the first defendant disqualified her under principles derived from the now-repealed Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856. However, the High Court found this conclusion erroneous and observed that such disqualification has no legal foundation under the current statutory regime.

The Bench emphasized the overriding effect of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, stating:"The Hindu Succession Act does not contain any provision disqualifying a widow from inheriting her husband’s property upon remarriage. The only provision which imposed such disqualification was Section 24 of the Act, and even that was repealed by the 2005 amendment."

The Court further clarified that Chinnaiyan, upon his birth, had acquired a vested remainder in the property under the settlement. Upon his death in 1968, his share devolved onto his legal heir, i.e., his widow Malliga, under the Hindu Succession Act. Any reliance on the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 was misplaced, as it was rendered inoperative by Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Cherotte Sugathan v. Cherotte Bharathi [(2008) 2 CTC 92], which reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession Act prevails over earlier inconsistent laws. The Bench held:"Section 2 of the 1856 Act would not prevail over the provisions of the 1956 Act, having regard to Section 4."

The Court also rejected the respondent's reliance on Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan v. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki, clarifying that the decision pertained to a case where succession had opened prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act.

In conclusion, the High Court partially allowed the appeal, holding that Malliga is entitled to a 1/3rd share in Items 1 and 3 of the disputed properties. The Court observed that since Item 2 was acquired jointly by the two brothers after 1978, Malliga could not claim a share in it.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. R. Nalliyappan
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Munusamy

Case Title: Malliga (Died) and Others v. S Shanmugam (Died) and Others

Case No: A.S.No.696 of 2017

Bench: Justice R. Subramanian and Justice C. Kumarappan