Archive · 16 Sep 2026
Madras HC Upholds Daughter’s Inheritance After Mother’s Remarriage
A man named Venkatesan died while owning a share of family property.
His wife later remarried and did not ask for the property.
Another family member argued that the property should return to the other members of the joint family.
The Madras High Court disagreed.
It said an old law could restrict the remarried widow, but it did not remove the daughter’s rights.
Venkatesan’s daughter Lalithamani was his only Class I heir in this case.
That meant she could inherit his entire share.
The court said her mother’s remarriage did not automatically cancel her inheritance.
It also said a different Supreme Court case about inheritance after murder did not apply.
The ruling concerns older estates governed by the law before the 2005 amendment.
The Madras High Court ruled that Lalithamani could inherit her deceased father Venkatesan’s share in joint family property despite her mother’s remarriage.
Justice P.B. Balaji held that the old Section 24 restriction applied only to a remarried widow, not to other Class I heirs.
Because Lalithamani was Venkatesan’s only Class I legal heir in the case, she inherited his entire coparcenary interest.
The court rejected the argument that Venkatesan’s share automatically reverted to surviving coparceners after his widow remarried.
The court distinguished the Supreme Court’s Vellikannu ruling, which involved disqualification for murder under Section 25, and dismissed the revision petition without costs.
- Who
- The Madras High Court, Justice P.B. Balaji, Lalithamani, Venkatesan’s widow, and another coparcener involved in the property dispute.
- What
- The court held that a daughter could inherit her deceased father’s coparcenary share even after her mother remarried.
- When
- The judgment was reportedly delivered on August 25, 2026, concerning succession governed by the law before the 2005 amendment.
- Where
- The Madras High Court in India.
- Why
- The court found that the old Section 24 disqualification applied only to the remarried widow and did not extinguish the daughter’s independent inheritance rights.
Daughter’s inheritance protected
Inheritance challenged by surviving coparcener
Effect of the mother’s remarriage
Daughter’s inheritance protected
The old Section 24 restriction applied only to the remarried widow and did not prevent Lalithamani, another Class I heir, from inheriting.
Inheritance challenged by surviving coparcener
The petitioner argued that the widow’s disqualification should mean Venkatesan’s share returned to the surviving coparceners instead of passing to his daughter.
Application of Supreme Court precedent
Daughter’s inheritance protected
The High Court said Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal concerned Section 25 and disqualification for murder, not Section 24 and remarriage.
Inheritance challenged by surviving coparcener
The petitioner relied on Vellikannu to argue that the daughter could not claim the property through her father after the relevant family disqualification.
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Judge
- Justice P.B. Balaji
- Daughter
- Lalithamani, Venkatesan’s only Class I legal heir in the case
- Relevant law
- Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as it existed before being omitted by the 2005 amendment
- Property
- Venkatesan’s coparcenary interest in Hindu joint family property
- Legal dispute
- Whether the widow’s remarriage caused Venkatesan’s share to revert to surviving coparceners
- Outcome
- The civil revision petition and connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed without costs
