This article is written by Prashant Prasad. It deals with the facts, issues, and arguments presented by the appellant and respondent, the various legal aspects involved, and the judgement that was delivered by the Apex Court in the case of R. Kuppayee & Anr. vs. Raja Gounder (2004). Furthermore, the present article comprehensively deals with the gift of ancestral immovable property, along with the legal validity of such a transfer. 

Introduction

Matters related to the family have always been of vital importance and the present case effectively depicts that fact. This case intricately revolves around the principles of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, along with the legal validity of gifts made by the father in favour of the daughter. It addresses one of the major issues under Hindu law, specifically the power of the father to give ancestral immovable property, as opposed to the traditional and primitive practice. 

The core question in the present case discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was the authority of the Karta of a family to transfer a portion of ancestral immovable property in favour of a married daughter. The Apex Court ruling not only clarifies the legal boundaries associated with such gifts but also sets a legal precedent that addresses the complex property issues in Hindu families. 

The case of R. Kuppayee & Anr. vs. Raja Gounder (2004) serves as a pivotal reference point to understand the extent to which traditional Hindu law accepts modern legal principles involving family property. This case is especially significant as it addresses familial tension and clarifies the father’s authority to transfer property within reasonable limits. The analysis of the case sheds light on the evolving jurisprudence regarding the succession of property in Hindu law.   

Details of the case 

Name of the case 

R. Kuppayee & Anr Vs. Raja Gounder

Petitioner

R. Kuppayee & Anr. 

Respondent

Raja Gounder

Name of the court 

Supreme Court of India

Bench of judges 

R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan 

Date of judgement

10 December, 2003

Equivalent citations 

AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1284, 2004 (1) SCC 295, 2003 AIR SCW 7035. 

Background of the case 

The case of R. Kuppayee & Anr. vs. Raja Gounder (2004), involves one of the major questions regarding the transfer of ancestral immovable property. In primitive times, the property of the family used to be held collectively and the decision regarding the disposition of that property was made by the head of the family, known as ‘Karta’. At that time, the Karta had limited authority to transfer ancestral property, as it was believed that the property of the family should remain in the family itself for the upcoming generations. 

However, with due time as a result of a change in social practices, there was an evolution in the subsisting trend. Thereafter, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came and clarified the entire confusion regarding the extent to which family members, including the daughters, had rights to ancestral property. The evolution of laws like this has acknowledged the rights of female members to the property of the family.  

The present case arose from the historic position regarding the transfer of ancestral property and the legal boundaries of such a transfer were contested. The main question on which the entire case revolved was whether the father has the right as the Karta of the family to gift any portion of ancestral property in favour of the daughter and if such a gift yes, then under what conditions would such a gift be considered a legally valid gift? The ruling of the Apex Court in the present case is of paramount importance as it determines the extent to which the father has the authority to make such a transfer.  

Facts of R. Kuppayee & Anr. vs. Raja Gounder (2004) 

• In the present case, the appellants are the daughters of the respondent. On 29th August 1985, the respondent, i.e., their father, registered a settlement deed for an extent of 12 cents (1 cent is equal to 435.56 square feet) of land in Thathagapatti village, Salem District, in favour of their daughters. According to the details provided in the settlement deed, the settlement was carried out due to genuine love and affection, and the possession of the land was transferred to them on the day the settlement deed was executed.
• The schedule included in the deed indicates that the total property owned by the family is 3.16 acres and a gift was made of 12 cents of land along with the house standing on the gifted land. The settlement deed also mentioned that in the future, neither the respondent nor any male or female heir of the family will have any rights over the property that was gifted.
• On 22nd April 1990, approximately five years after the settlement of the deed, the father and his associate asked the appellants to vacate the property and attempted to trespass on it. As a result of an attempt made by the respondent to trespass on the property, a suit was filed by the appellant at the District Munsif Court, requesting a permanent injunction to prevent the father and his associates from interfering with their property or for any other appropriate relief based on the circumstances of the case. 
• In the written statement, the respondent resisted the suit by asserting that he had not signed any settlement deed; he stated that his son-in-law had purchased the house site and the respondent had been taken to the registrar office merely to witness the sale deed. Additionally, the respondent claimed that he has a habit of consuming liquor and taking advantage of this addiction, the appellants and their husbands deceitfully executed the sale deed from him. Furthermore, the respondent contended that the property in question is a joint Hindu family (JHF) property belonging to both him and his son; therefore, it cannot be transferred as a gift under any circumstances.   
• The plea was supported by the submitted evidence. Appellant No. 1 acknowledged that the property is ancestral and that her father settled it in her and her sister’s name out of love and affection. An attesting witness to Exhibit A-1 stated he knew the respondent and when he was standing on a road, talking to people, he was called by the respondent to witness the document. He accompanied the respondent to the sub-registrar’s office, where the respondent signed the document after reviewing it. He further stated that he, along with Govindawamy, signed Exhibit A-1 as a witness. Since Govindawamy is deceased, he was cross-examined and it was affirmed by him that he was unaware of fact, as to when, where and in whose name the stamp paper was purchased. He also stated that he had no knowledge of the respondent’s habit of drinking liquor. 
• After considering the entire case scenario, the Trial Court ruled that the respondent had no authority to give the ancestral property and therefore the suit was dismissed. The decision given by the Trial Court was confirmed by the First Appellate Court as well as by the High Court. Aggrieved by the decisions of the lower court, the present appeal was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to give a final decision.  

Issues raised 

The issues that were raised for consideration in the present appeal are as follows –

• Whether the lower court was mistaken in understanding the evidence from the witness who was present during the signing of the settlement deed?
• Is it legally valid for a father to give a fair amount of land from the property of a JHF to his married daughters as a gift/settlement? 

Arguments of the parties

Appellant

The submissions made by the counsel of the appellant are as follows –

• It was argued that the lower court’s findings were incorrect both factually and legally. The counsel specifically claimed that the lower court had misinterpreted the statement of the witness regarding the execution of Exhibit A-1. 
• It was argued by the counsel of the appellants that the respondent has made the settlement deed in favour of the appellants as a genuine expression of love, affection, and respect towards them. 
• It was further argued that the claim implied an immediate transfer of ownership of the property on the day the settlement document was signed. 
• It was also argued that the PW-2, who knows the respondent well, testified that the respondent does not have the habit of alcohol consumption, which suggested that the respondent was of sound mind while signing the settlement deed.
• The counsel stated that the respondent is a Karta of the JHF and therefore, he had the authority to gift the ancestral property to his daughter to some reasonable extent.   
• It was further argued by the counsel that such authority of transfer is being recognised by the Hindu textbooks as well as by the recent judicial rulings.   

Respondent  

The submissions made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are based on various claims. 

• The counsel for the respondent claimed that the respondent had never signed the settlement agreement. 
• It was argued by the respondent that he was taken to the office of the registrar to observe the sale of a home site by his son-in-law, who is the spouse of appellant no. 1. 
• The respondent had a habit of alcohol consumption, which was known by the appellants, and taking advantage of this fact, the appellants, along with their spouses, fraudulently obtained the signature of the respondents on the sale deed.
• The main contention on the part of the respondents was that the father had no legal authority to give any part of the ancestral immovable property. 
• Additionally, the counsel pointed out that the property in question is a residential house that is owned by the family, which implies the legality and further implications of the attempted gift made by the father.        

Laws involved in R. Kuppayee & Anr. vs. Raja Gounder (2004)

Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is relevant to this case, as the primary issues present in the case deal with the question of whether the gift of ancestral property made by the father is valid or not. Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically talks about the testamentary succession. It allows allows a Hindu male dying intestate to dispose of his share in coparcenary property either by way of ‘will’ or by other testamentary disposition

Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 states that any Hindu may dispose of any property either by will or by other testamentary disposition that is capable of being disposed of by him or her in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The interpretation of this section clearly gives us the idea that a Hindu could dispose of property, including coparcenary property, through a will. 

Coparcenary property 

The concept relating to coparcenary property is of vital importance, as in the present case it was the coparcenary/ancestral property that was transferred in favour of the daughter. The conceptual clarity of this concept would give us an idea regarding the fact as to whether the gift of coparcenary property made in favour of the daughter is legally valid or not. 

The ancestral property of a JHF is referred to as a coparcenary property; such property does not include the self-acquired property. If the property is inherited by the four generations of male lineage, then such property is referred to as ancestral property. The right of this property is shared among the different coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Family. Before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the concept of coparcener was limited to the male members of the family, who were given an interest in the coparcener property. 

However, after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, there were changes introduced in the succession law and now women are recognised as coparceners. Therefore, it can be said that in contemporary times, both sons and daughters are considered to be the coparcener of the family. The participation of the daughter in the coparcenary property continues to exist even if she marries and in the event of her death, her offspring automatically acquires the right to the property which was expected to be received by her.  

The various rights and duties of coparceners are as follows –

• The coparceners have a collective interest in the property and under any circumstances, they don’t enjoy exclusive possession or any distinctive interest in the property. 
• Since the coparcener follows the Mitakshara system, the share among coparceners is decided by survivorship. As a result, the shares of coparceners fluctuate whenever there is a birth or death in the family. 
• The members of a coparcenary have the right to joint possession and they can enjoy the ancestral property. If any coparcener member is being obstructed from continuing with the joint possession then that person can exercise this right. 
• The coparcener is entitled to receive maintenance from the family’s estate. In case of any special occasion, such as marriage, medical urgency, etc., he is entitled to receive money from the ancestral property. 
• If any coparcener tries to misuse the estate of the family or attempts an unauthorised alienation, he can be restrained from doing so. 
• The coparcener does have the right to demand the partition of the ancestral property. However, the demand should be definite, as it would be definite after the partition. 
• The coparcenary member does not have the right to alienate over his interests under usual circumstances. However, Karta of the family holds the authority to alienate joint family property when there is a legal necessity, for the benefit of the estate, or to fulfill other essential duties. 

Gift 

Gift forms the most vital part of the entire case and it’s because of the gift made by the father that the present case came into existence. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the legal provisions relating to the gift.  

Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines gift as the transfer of existing movable or immovable property; such a transfer must be made voluntarily and without consideration. Therefore, some of the essential elements of a gift are – there must be an absolute transfer of property in favour of the donee; the property that is getting transferred must be in existence; it is immaterial whether the property getting transferred is movable, immovable, tangible or intangible; the transfer of the gift should be without consideration; the gift must be transferred voluntarily with free consent; and lastly, the gift needs to be accepted by the person to whom it is being transferred.    

It has been stated under Mulla’s Hindu law that a Hindu father or the other managing member of the family does have the power to make the gift within the reasonable limits of ancestral immovable property. The alienation must be inter vivos and not by will. A member of a joint family cannot dispose of any portion of the property by will, even for a charitable purpose, regardless of how small the portion may be with respect to the entire estate. However, this position has been changed with due time and Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, allows any Hindu to dispose of any property either by will or by other testamentary disposition. 

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

The Apex Court as well as the Bombay High Court has referred to the series of judgements that address the issues involved in the case. The various precedents that were referred to are as follows – 

Anivillah Sundararamaya vs. Cherla Seethamma And Ors. (1911)

Facts

In Anivillah Sundararamaya vs. Cherla Seethamma and Ors. (1911), the father made the gift of 8 acres of land out of 200 acres of ancestral immovable property in the year 1899 and thereafter the father died. The plaintiff, who was a member of the family, filed a suit for the recovery of land on the ground that the father was not capable of making the gift of property. The Court was of the opinion that the Hindu law texts fully support the idea that the father is competent to make the gift of an ancestral movable property at the time of marriage. However, in this case, the Court considered the question of whether the gift of immovable property can be made by the father or not.  

Issue

The main issue before the Madras High Court in the present case was whether the gift of a partition of a joint family property by the father is legally permissible? 

Judgement 

After considering the facts and issues associated with the case, it was ruled by the Court that a portion of an ancestral immovable property could be gifted to the daughter either before or after the marriage, and such a gift would be legally valid. Therefore, the gift made by the father is legally valid and it cannot be said that the gift of 8 acres of land in favour of the daughter is unreasonable. 

Pugalia Vettorammal and Anr. vs. Vettor Goundan (1911)

In Pugalia Vettorammal and Anr. vs. Vettor Goundan (1911), it was held by the Madras High Court that the father does have the authority/power to make the gift of ancestral immovable property to a reasonable extent in favour of the daughter. Therefore, in this case, the gift made by the father was 1/6th of the total property, and hence such a gift was deemed legally valid.

Devabhaktuni Sithamahalakshmamma vs. Pamulapati Kotayya And Ors. (1936)

In the case of Devabhaktuni Sithamahalakshmamma vs. Pamulapati Kotayya and Ors. (1936), the question arose regarding the power of the father to make the gift of ancestral immovable property in favour of the daughter and the daughter’s daughter. The Court, in this case, ruled that the gift made in favour of the daughter is legally valid even though the defendant has an interest in the property. However, the Court was of the opinion that the gift made by the father in favour of the daughter’s daughter stands on a different footing and therefore, the gift made in favour of the daughter’s daughter cannot be considered a valid gift because a Hindu father is not competent to make the gift of ancestral immovable property in favour of the daughter’s daughter out of love and affection. 

The Commissioner of Gift Tax vs. Tej Nath (1972) 

In the Commissioner of Gift Tax vs. Tej Nath (1972), a person named Tej Nath made a gift of ancestral property to the various members of the family; the total property gifted comprises an agricultural land of 652 kanals. The gifts were made from the property that was inherited by Tej Nath and the property that was relinquished by his stepmother. The gift-tax officer included the value of these gifts in the gift-tax assessment for the term of years 1945-65, as a result, a tax liability of 65,000 arose. An appeal was filed by Tej Nath, contending that the gift made is void, as he is the Karta of the family and he does not have the authority to transfer ancestral property. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concluded that the Karta cannot make a gift of ancestral property and therefore, the gift made is void and should not be taxable. 

Finally, the case came before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the main question before the Court was whether the tribunal’s holding that the gift made by the Karta of the JHF was void ab initio and was therefore not subjected to tax under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, was right or not. After considering the contentions of both parties and analysing the various laws and principles, it was ruled by the Court that the decision given by the Court that the gift made is void ab initio is correct and, therefore, cannot be taxed under the Gift-tax Act, 1958. 

Kamla Devi vs. Bachulal Gupta (1957) 

In this case, the Court considered the question of the extended meaning of “pious purpose.” In the said case, a Hindu widowed woman, in order to fulfil an ante-nuptial promise that was made on the occasion of the settlement of the terms of the marriage of her daughter, executed a deed of gift in respect of 4 houses in favour of her daughter. The deed was executed after two years of marriage as her marriage dowry. The partition provided the right of income from the property; however, she did not have authority to transfer the property in a way that would harm the rights of those entitled to the reversion.   

An appeal was filed by his stepson for the declaration that the gift made is null and ineffective and cannot bind the reversioners. The Trial Court as well as the High Court ruled that the gift made is not valid. Finally, the case came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it was ruled that the gift granted to the daughter was perfectly valid and is binding on the reversioners. 

Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh vs. Malappa (1963)

In the case of Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh vs. Malappa (1963), it was ruled by the Court that the father does have the right to make the gift up to a reasonable extent of the ancestral property in favour of the daughter for her maintenance. It was further stated by the Court that it cannot be said that the gift should be made only by one document or at a single point in time. The Court was of the opinion that the validity of a gift does not depend on the plurality of the document; what matters is the power of the father to make the gift and the reasonableness of such a gift. It was clarified by the court that if the reasonableness of the gift made is indisputable, then the fact that two gist deeds were executed instead of one cannot make the gift less valid. Therefore, relying on this reasoning, the Supreme Court of India held that the gift made by the father in the case of Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh vs. Malappa (1963) is certainly reasonable and perfectly valid. 

Ammathayee Ammal & Anr vs. Kumaresan & Others (1966)

In the case of Anivillah Sundararamaya vs. Cherla Seethamma and Ors. (1911), the Court was of the opinion that there is no ‘pious purpose’ on the father-in-law to make the gift of ancestral property in favour of his daughter-in-law at the time of marriage. The Court further stated that the daughter-in-law becomes a member of the family of the father-in-law after the marriage and then she would be entitled to the ancestral immovable property under certain circumstances. Therefore, it was concluded by the Supreme Court of India that this case stands on a different footing from the case of a daughter who is married to whom the reasonable gift of ancestral immovable property can be made.  

Judgement of the case

In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India accepted the appeal and dismissed the judgement and decree that were passed by the lower court. It was held by the court that the father does have the authority to make the gift of ancestral property if it is within a reasonable limit. Furthermore, it was held by the Court that, in the present case, the gift made is not vitiated by reason of any fraud or misrepresentation. The appellant was held to be the absolute owner of the property and the respondents were given an injunction order against interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property in question. 

Decision of the Trial Court 

The Trial Court relied on the evidence presented by the respondent and dismissed the suit. 

• It was observed by the court that, if the father had the intention to execute the sale deed in favour of his daughter, then he must have been asked the same from his son for affixing his signature to the sale deed as a witness. However, this was not the case and therefore, Exhibit 1-A cannot be relied on. 
• It was concluded by the Trial Court that the respondent was brought to the Sub-Registrar’s office under the pretext of witnessing the document, but instead, a deed settlement was executed against him. 
• The testimony given by the attesting witness was rejected by the court and it was ruled that the property under question is ancestral property and the respondent has no power/authority to gift any portion of such property in favour of his daughter.

As a result, the court dismissed the suit and this decision was upheld by the first Appellate Court as well as by the High Court. Finally, the case came up before the Apex Court, and the final decision was given in this case. 

Ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 

Whether the lower court was mistaken in understanding the evidence from the witness who was present during the signing of the settlement deed

The Supreme Court of India, after careful perusal of the statements given by the witnesses of both parties, was of the opinion that the Trial Court had misconstrued the testimony given by the witnesses. 

• Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has compared the statement given by Prosecution Witness-2 during cross-examination and what was observed by the Trial Court in the judgement, and it was concluded by the Apex Court that the Trial Court has misread and misconstrued the testimony given by the witness. 
• The Court stated that if the respondent has to be the witness, then there is no need for the PW-2 and Govindasamy to accompany the respondent. It was further stated by the court that the testimony given by the respondent lacked credibility; the respondent denied his signature on important documents like settlement deed, summons, etc. 
• Further, the Court was of the opinion that the claim made by the respondent that the appellants took his signature on the settlement deed when he was in a state of intoxication is not believable. Although the respondent had knowledge about the settlement deed, there was no interference on the part of the respondent for five years to cancel the settlement while the appellants lived in the house. 

Therefore, the Court concluded that the finding of the lower court which was upheld by the higher court is based on misinterpretation and is legally flawed.  

Is it legally valid for a father to give a fair amount of land from the property of a JHF to his married daughters as a gift/settlement 

• It was held by the Trial Court that, because the property was ancestral property, the respondent lacked the authority to gift any part of such property to his daughters. However, the First Appellate Court has acknowledged that a father does have a right to give a small portion of ancestral property to his daughter. However, in the present case, since the total extent of the family’s property wasn’t determined, it cannot be said that the property gifted by the father was reasonable or not. This finding of the first Appellate Court was affirmed by the High Court. 
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred a series of cases to consider the present issue and it was ruled by the court that the father does have the authority to gift the ancestral immovable property; however, such a gift must be within the reasonable limits in favour of the daughter at the time of her marriage or subsequently, considering the total extent of property held by the family. The Court in the present case considered the question of whether the gift made by the respondent in favour of the appellant is within a reasonable limit or not. In the current scenario, the total property that the family was holding was 3.16 acres and the gift was made of 12 cents, which is approximately 1/26th share of the total land holding. Therefore, the Court observed that the share of each daughter would be 1/52nd of the total land holding, which cannot be held to be unreasonable or excessive.
• It was further observed by the court that the question of determining whether a particular gift falls within reasonable limits should be based on the family’s status (i.e., the extent of immovable property owned by the family and the extent of property gifted) at the time when the gift was made. Therefore, there is no prescribed rule for calculating the limits of such gifts and it varies from family to family. On the other hand, if it is determined that the gift exceeds reasonable limits, then such gift cannot be upheld as right. Furthermore, the Court observed that the burden of proof in such a situation is on the respondent to prove that the gift made was not within the rational limits while considering the family’s total holdings. Therefore, in the present case, it was ruled by the Court that the respondents failed to demonstrate or substantiate that the gift was unreasonable, considering the family’s total holding. As a result, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the judgement and decree that were passed by the lower court and it was ruled that the respondent does have the authority to make the gift up to a rational extent of ancestral immovable property.     

Rationale behind the judgement

The Supreme Court of India in the present case addresses two main and vital questions. The first issue was how the settlement deed was handled and the misunderstandings associated with it and second was whether the father was legally entitled to make the gift of ancestral property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India discovered that the findings recorded by the Trial Court clearly show that the court has made a mistake in understanding the testimony given by the PW-2. It was stated by the PW-2 that the respondent has invited him to witness the settlement deed and there is no evidence in the present case that shows that the respondent was merely a witness rather than the principal party executing the deed. As a result, it was concluded by the Court that the Trial Court had entirely failed to consider the testimony given by the PW-2 and that the Trial Court did not properly evaluate the credibility of the denial by the respondent. Therefore, the Court concluded by stating that the denial made by the respondent lacks credibility as there were no steps taken by him to cancel the deed even after five years, during which the appellant was in possession of the property in question. 

Moreover, the second vital question that arose before the Court was whether the Karta had the authority to make the gift of ancestral immovable property or not. The Trial Court ruled that since the property is ancestral property, the respondent does not have the authority to make such a gift. However, the Apex Court examined the provisions related to the gift of ancestral property and it was ruled by the court that Karta cannot generally dispose of the ancestral immovable property beyond a reasonable limit, but he does have the authority to make the gift up to a reasonable limit, particularly for the welfare of daughters. The Court considered that the property gifted in the present case was reasonable as it constitutes merely a small portion of the total property and was made for the benefit of the daughters. 

Critical analysis of R. Kuppayee & Anr. vs. Raja Gounder (2004)     

The overall analysis of the present case reveals some of the sacrosanct and crucial aspects of judicial interpretation and property law. The ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India led to the clarification on the fact that the father does have authority to make a gift to his daughter but that should be within reasonable limits. The analysis of the present case emphasised some of the key points.

The court rightly concluded that there was a misreading of evidence by the lower court and therefore the appellant’s suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The Apex Court identified that the misreading of evidence led to an incorrect conclusion. The Court, through this interpretation, highlighted the importance of careful and accurate evaluation of the statement of the witness and other evidence. The Apex Court further ruled in the case that the Karta of the family does have the authority to make the gift of ancestral immovable property up to a reasonable limit. This reflects the evolving understanding of Hindu law by balancing the traditional restriction and the modern interpretation of the father’s obligation towards the daughter.

A series of judgements were referred by the Court to consider the present issue and it was concluded by the Court that each case needs to be judged on its own merit by considering the total assets of the family. Additionally, the Court highlighted that judicial interpretation should be sensitive to the practical realities catering to the needs of contemporary times and must not be merely bound by rigid traditional constraints. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision in the present case depicts the crucial fact that the father does have the authority to make the gift of ancestral immovable property within reasonable limits. 

Conclusion 

Based on the above discussion of the entire case, it can be well inferred that the court’s decision to uphold the appeal filed by the appellant is absolutely right. The Court, after examining the material facts and issues of the case, ruled that the settlement deed executed in favour of the appellant is perfectly valid and is not vitiated by reason of any fraud or misrepresentation. The Court in the present case made a significant ruling and held that the father has authority under Hindu law to give a gift of ancestral immovable property to his daughter. However, it was further clarified by the court of law that the gift made should be within a reasonable limit and should not exceed that limit. There is no rule as such to calculate the reasonable limit of the property; it depends on the total ancestral property, and based on that, the reasonable property is being decided. 

The Court, in order to ensure the adherence of the decision passed, issued a permanent injunction against the respondent. Thereby, prohibiting the interference of the respondent with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant. This case has established a significant legal precedent regarding the validity of settlement deeds that involve ancestral property and the case has shaped the interpretation and application of Hindu succession and property law. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What implications does the case have on the Hindu succession law?

The judgement given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Kuppayee & Anr vs. Raja Gounder, strengthened the principle that the father has authority/power to gift ancestral immovable property up to a reasonable limit. This decision has emphasised the moral obligations as well as the responsibilities of the family as enshrined under the ancient Hindu legal texts.  

Is registration of gift necessary for ancestral immovable property to become legally valid?

If there is a gift of immovable property, then it must be registered in order to become a legally valid gift. Section 123 the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 states that the gift of immovable property must be registered in order to make it of legal value. 

Does the father have an authority under Hindu Law to make the gift of ancestral immovable property in favour of the daughter?

Yes, the father has the authority under Hindu law to make the gift of ancestral immovable property in favour of the daughter. However, the gift made must be within a reasonable limit, and it must not exceed the reasonable limit in relation to the total property owned by the family.  

References 

• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/04/15/latest-supreme-court-judgment-on-ancestral-property/
• https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/6D04EFAA-E30A-41FB-9FB4-00430305D3A8.pdf
• https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/hindu-can-dispose-of-undivided-share-in-joint-family-by-will-as-per-sec30-hindu-succession-act-sc-read-judgment-142361