The transfer of property to legal heirs is usually done based on a person’s testament or will. However, if someone dies without leaving a will, known as dying intestate, the property is divided among the beneficiaries according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Prior to 2005, women were not given rights of succession as a coparcener, however, after 2005 , an amendment was brought in which gave an exclusive right to the daughter as a coparcener and also equal rights as that of a son
This article provides a brief discussion of the Hindu Succession Act, of 1956, and its 2005 Amendment highlighting various changes that provide uniform order of succession with respect to the property rights of Hindu daughters.
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 is a law that governs how property is inherited and passed down, especially when a person dies without leaving a will.
“The Hindu Succession Act of 1956, is related to the inheritance and succession of property as well as deals with intestate or non-testamentary succession.”
“This Act is applicable to all Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, or Buddhists other than those under the jurisdiction of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This Act is not applicable to people governed by the Special Marriage Act, of 1954.”
The Act also applies to the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools, which are two important systems of Hindu personal law. These schools play a key role in defining how property is shared within a Hindu joint family system.
“Herein, Mitakshara School and Dayabhaga School are two popular schools of the Hindu Joint Family System on which the rules of Hindu personal law depend.”
Mitakshara School and Property Devolution
Under the Mitakshara School, there are two ways to pass on property:
- Devolution by survivorship: This applies only to ancestral or coparcenary property.
- Devolution by succession: This is for the self-acquired property of an individual.
“Devolution of succession and Devolution by survivorship are the two modes of property devolution, according to the Mitakshara School. The survivorship rule is applicable only to the ancestral property or coparcenary property whereas the succession rule is applicable to the self-acquired property of an individual.”
Dayabhaga School
Unlike the Mitakshara School, the Dayabhaga School gives more importance to the rule of succession. It allows property to pass to heirs based on the succession rules, without strict reliance on joint family principles.
“Dayabhaga School on the other hand mainly emphasizes the succession rule.”
Changes Brought by the Act
Section 2 of the Act nullified all previous customs, rules, and laws that applied to Hindus regarding inheritance.
“As per Section 2 of this Act, all earlier customs, laws, and rules, applicable to Hindus were abrogated.”
Before this Act, female heirs were not recognized for inheritance under the survivorship rule in coparcenary property. Only male heirs were allowed to inherit such property.
“Earlier, the female heirs were not recognized and survivorship rule in coparcenary property was applicable only to the male heirs.”
A coparcener, in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) system, is a person with legal rights to inherit property, money, and titles. It essentially refers to a joint heir.
After the enactment of this Act, the rules changed significantly. If a man dies intestate (without a will) and only female heirs are left, the property no longer devolves according to the survivorship rule. Instead, it is distributed as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, brought significant changes to the property rights of Hindu daughters. It was implemented on September 9, 2005, and granted daughters the same rights to inherit property as sons.
Key Provisions of the Amendment
One of the most important changes was made to Section 6 of the Act. This section now recognizes daughters as coparceners by birth, just like sons. This means that daughters have equal rights and responsibilities in coparcenary property. Sons and daughters are now both categorized as Class I heirs, ensuring gender equality in property inheritance.
Additionally, the amendment clarified that a married daughter also has the right to ask for partition of the family property. This right is not limited by any specific restrictions.
“Thus, a married daughter has the right to seek partition of the coparcenary property which is not restricted by any limitation.”
The amendment also states that if a Hindu man or woman dies after the implementation of the 2005 Amendment, their property will be distributed either through intestate or testamentary succession.
Testamentary Succession
Testamentary succession happens when a person leaves behind a valid and enforceable will or testament. The property is then distributed among the beneficiaries named in the will.
“A testamentary succession is where the property is governed by a testament or a will and is passed to the beneficiaries named in it.”
Under Hindu law, any Hindu male or female has the right to prepare a will for their property. The will can specify equal shares for all legal heirs or favor specific individuals. The property is distributed according to the provisions in the will, and inheritance laws do not apply in such cases. However, if the will is found to be invalid, the property will then be distributed as per the laws of inheritance.
“The distribution of property will be as per the provisions of the will, not through the inheritance laws. If the will is not valid then only the laws of inheritance can be implemented for property devolution.”
Intestate Succession
When a Hindu man or woman passes away without leaving a valid will, their property is divided among the legal heirs according to inheritance laws. This process is called intestate succession.
Other Changes in the Amendment
The 2005 Amendment also removed Section 3 of the original Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which restricted women from seeking partition within a shared house. After the amendment, women were granted the right to ask for a partition of property, including residential houses.
However, the amendment left some questions unanswered. One key issue was
Whether a daughter has the right to claim her father’s property after his death?
This , question was resolved over the years by the variety of judgements passed by the apex court which are as follows:
Prakash vs. Phulvati (2016)
In this case, a legal suit was filed by the respondent in the Trial Court of Belgaum in 1992, seeking a partition of her father’s property, including ancestral and self-acquired assets, after his death on February 18, 1988. The respondent claimed separate possession of a 1/7th share in the ancestral property and a 1/28th share in certain other properties.
The Trial Court partly allowed her claim and granted her a share based on the provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (HSAA), which came into effect on September 9, 2005.
Dissatisfied with the Trial Court’s decision, the respondent approached the Karnataka High Court, asserting that under Section 6(1) of the Amendment Act, she had become a coparcener, granting her equal rights to her father’s property as the sons. The appellant, her brother, contested this claim, arguing that the Amendment Act did not apply because their father had passed away before the Amendment’s commencement.
The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, prompting the appellant to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. The appellant maintained that the respondent was only entitled to a share of the father’s self-acquired property and not the ancestral property, as the Amendment Act could not be applied retrospectively.
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, could be applied when the father’s death occurred prior to the Amendment’s commencement.
The Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s argument that,
“A daughter automatically becomes a coparcener after her father’s death, regardless of whether the death occurred before the Amendment’s enforcement”
The respondent also argued that,
“The Amendment Act was a social legislation and should be applied retrospectively; however, the Court, comprising Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, disagreed.”
The Court clarified that the legislature explicitly stated that the 2005 Amendment Act would be effective from September 9, 2005, and it could not be applied retrospectively.
The judgment concluded that ,
“if both the father and the daughter were alive on September 9, 2005, then the provisions of the Amendment Act would apply.”
This landmark decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the specified effective date of the Amendment, providing clarity on its applicability.
Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. vs. Amar & Ors. (2018)
The case was filed by the appellants challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, which had denied them coparcenary rights on the grounds that they were born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. The appellants, daughters of Mr. Gurulingappa Savadi and Sumitrai, sought recognition of their rights in the joint family property.
In 2001, Mr. Gurulingappa Savadi passed away, leaving behind his widow, two daughters, and two sons. A year later, in 2002, the respondents, Arun Kumar and Vijay, filed a suit seeking separate possession of the joint family property.
The respondents argued that the daughters (appellants) were not entitled to any share because they were born before the Hindu Succession Act came into effect. Additionally, they claimed that dowries had been given to the daughters at the time of their marriages, which, in their view, nullified any further claims to the property.
The Trial Court ruled that the deceased’s widow and his two sons were the only recognized coparceners, thereby rejecting the daughters’ claims. This decision was upheld by the High Court in 2012. Subsequently, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition challenging both lower court decisions.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, heard arguments from both sides. After careful deliberation, the bench held that
“Section 6 of the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act unequivocally grants daughters the same property rights and liabilities as sons, regardless of whether the parents are alive or deceased.“
The Court emphasized that:
“After the death of the propositus (Mr. Gurulingappa Savadi), the joint family property should be equally divided among his widow and all four children. Consequently, the daughters (appellants) were entitled to an equal share of the property. The bench ordered that each appellant was entitled to a 1/5th share of the property.”
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court referenced several significant judgments, including Prakash vs. Phulvati and Vaishali Satish Gonarkar vs. Satish Kehorao Gonarkar, among others.
The ruling marked a significant step toward gender equality in property rights, ensuring that daughters have the same entitlements as sons under the law.
READ ALSO :Do Married Daughters Have Equal Rights in Their Father’s Property?
Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Kumar (2020)
This landmark judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, affirming that
“Daughters possess equal property rights as coparceners as of sons under the HSA, irrespective of the enactment of the 2005 amendment.”
The ruling also clarified that daughters are coparceners by birth and hold the same rights and liabilities as sons. The case primarily addressed the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), 1956, after its amendment in 2005.
In this verdict, the Court overruled the conflicting decisions in Prakash vs. Phulvati and Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. vs. Amar & Ors., where two-judge benches had provided differing opinions on daughters’ rights as coparceners under the HSA and its 2005 Amendment.
The case was heard by a three-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Arun Mishra, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
The dispute arose when the appellant, Ms. Vineeta Sharma, filed a case against her two brothers (Mr. Satyendra Sharma and Mr. Rakesh Sharma) and their mother (respondents). Ms. Sharma’s father passed away in 1999, leaving behind his widow and three sons (one of whom, unmarried, died in 2001).
Ms. Sharma claimed a 1/4th share of her father’s property as his daughter. However, the respondents contested her claim, arguing that she was no longer a part of the joint Hindu family following her marriage.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Ms. Sharma’s appeal, stating that :
“The provisions of the 2005 Amendment did not apply since her father had passed away before its enactment. However, the Supreme Court bench rejected this reasoning.“
In its judgment, the Supreme Court declared that:
“The HSA, as amended in 2005, grants daughters the right to their father’s property from birth, irrespective of whether they were born before or after the Amendment’s commencement. Furthermore, it emphasized that a daughter’s right as a coparcener is not contingent on her father being alive at the time of the Amendment.“
The Court concluded by asserting that
“Daughters are coparceners by birth and have equal liabilities as of sons in either case, born after or before the enactment of HSAA or father is alive or dead after or before the commencement of HSAA.” This ruling significantly advanced gender equality in property rights within Hindu law.
READ JUDGEMENT
Conclusively, the landmark judgments under the Hindu Succession Act (HSA) and its 2005 Amendment have unequivocally established that daughters possess equal inheritance rights as sons.
Initially, the verdict in Prakash vs. Phulvati (2015) restricted these rights, requiring the father to be alive on the date of the Amendment. This was later broadened in Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. vs. Amar & Ors. (2018), where daughters were granted rights even if the father had passed away before the Amendment.
Finally, the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020) overruled earlier conflicting judgments, declaring that daughters are coparceners by birth, entitled to the same rights and liabilities as sons, regardless of whether they were born or their father was alive before the Amendment.
This progressive interpretation affirms that daughters have equal rights to inherit both ancestral and self-acquired property, thereby achieving gender parity in Hindu succession law.
READ MORE INFORMATION ON DAUGHTER’S RIGHTS
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
