1

AMITY
UNIVERSITY

ASSIGNMENT TOPIC
“The Law Of Succession And Inheritance under Hindu
Law”
”

Subject: Research Methods & Legal Writting (Advanced)

Submitted to: - Submitted by:-

Mr. Abhishek Dubey Sir. Adhish Prasad

EN no: - 12612579
 2

Semester: - 1st

Session: - 2024-25

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am very thankful to everyone who all supported me for I have completed my project effectively
and moreover on time. I am equally grateful to my Legal Research Methodology faculty: Mr.
Abhishek Dubey Sir. He gave me moral support and guided me in different matters regarding
the topic. He had been very kind and patient while suggesting me the outlines of this project and
correcting my doubts. I thank him for his overall supports. Last but not the least, I would like to
thank my friends who helped me a lot in gathering different information, collecting data and
guiding me from time to time in making this project despite of their busy schedules ,they gave
me different ideas in making this project unique.
 3

Thanking you

ADHISH PRASAD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. AIMS & OBJECTIVE………………………….….…………………………...…………4

2. RESEARCH QUESTION....................................................................................................4

3. HYPOTHESIS……………………………………….……………..….………………….4

4. SOURCES OF DATA…………………………………………………………………….4

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………..…..4

CHAPTERISATION

i. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………....………….....…..5

ii. KEY PROVISIONS OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956…………….6

iii. AMENDING ACT IN 2005 IN 2005…............…………....…………....….…7-8

iv. POSITION OR IMPACT AFTER THE AMENDMENT ACT,2005...................9

v. CASE COMMENTS…………………………………………………………10-12
 4

vi. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION.........................……………..….....…13-14

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………...….………....15

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

The researcher prime objective is to:-

1. To find out the legal implications of Hindu coparcener property.

2. To highlight the important provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956
3. To highlight the position after Hindu Succession (amendment) Act, 2005

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Is it gender equal?

2. Do son and daughter have equal rights or share in Hindu coparcener property?
3. What was the need of Hindu Succession (amendment) Act, 2005?

HYPOTHESIS

The Laws of Succession and Inheritance under Hindu Law is not gender biased and treats son
and daughter equally by providing equal rights or share in Hindu coparcener/ancestral property.

SOURCES OF DATA

Primary Sources:- SECONDARY SOURCES:-

1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 1. Books on Family Law

3. Magzines and Newspappers

4. Websites
 5

RESEARCH METHODLOGY

The various books and websites are referred for this topic. The sources from which the material
for this research collected are secondary. So the methodology used in the research has been
Doctrinal. No non-doctrinal method has been used by the researcher in this project.

1. INTRODUCTION

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 denotes the rights of succession and inheritance in
Hindu law. It includes the Hindu people which includes Sikh, Buddhist, or Jain.
This proviso covers the important definitions such as that of an agnate, cognate,
heir, and intestate. It also covers the main principle of justice, equity, and a good
conscience which is the external manifestation of natural justice and ensures equal
inheritance powers to all the heirs of a person. This principle also acts in
consonance with all the comprehensive and radical changes that have taken place
in the intestate succession amongst Hindus. It brought a massive and positive
change to the socio-economic conditions of the Hindus. These acts form the
foundation for the succession laws as it is often seen that in the Indian business
when the “Karta” or the head of the family dies, it often leads to family disputes
over the inheritance of the property. This act defines the Class 1 heir, Class II,
Class III, and Class IV heir to settle the disputes among the family members.
 6

2. Key provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

 Classification of Heirs:

 The Act classifies heirs into Class I and Class II categories:

Class I heirs include immediate family members like sons, daughters,

widows, and mothers, who inherit equally.
 Class II heirs include more distant relatives, such as siblings and their
descendants, who inherit only if there are no Class I heirs.
 In cases where there are no Class I or Class II heirs, the property goes
to agnates (blood relatives on the father’s side) and then
to cognates (blood relatives on the mother’s side).
Rights of Women:
 The Act was one of the first Indian laws to provide women with
inheritance rights, allowing daughters to inherit equally with sons.
 Widows are also entitled to inherit their husbands’ property. However, the
initial Act restricted women’s rights to ancestral property, especially in
joint Hindu families governed by Mitakshara law (a traditional legal
system within Hinduism).1
Separate and Ancestral Property:
 The Act distinguishes between separate or self-acquired
property and ancestral property (property inherited from ancestors up to
four generations).
 Upon the death of an individual, the self-acquired property is inherited by
legal heirs according to the Act, while ancestral property typically follows
rules of coparcenary inheritance under traditional law.
Applicability of act:
1
https://blog.ipleaders.in/historical-perspectives-hindu-law-inheritance/
 7

 Hindus by religion, including Virashaivas, Lingayats, Brahmos, Prarthna

Samajists, and Arya Samaj followers.
 Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains by religion.
 Persons who are not Muslim, Christian, Parsi, or Jewish unless it is proved
that Hindu law or custom does not govern them.
 The Act extends across India but does not automatically apply to
Scheduled Tribes as per Article 366 of the Constitution unless notified by
the Central Government.

3. AMENDING ACT IN 2005

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005:

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was passed to remove gender
discriminatory provisions in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and to give equal
rights to daughters in Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have.
The Act aimed at making two major amendments in the Hindu Succession Act,
1956. Firstly it amended the provision which excluded the right of the daughters
form the coparcenary property and secondly it omitted Section 23 of Act which
disentitled a female heir to ask for partition in respect of a dwelling house, wholly
occupied by a joint family, until the male heirs choose to divide their respective
shares therein. 2

The main provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are:

1. In a Hindu Joint Family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter by birth

shall become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a son.
2. She would have the same rights in the coparcenary property as that of a son.
3. She shall be subject to same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary
property as that of a son.
4. Any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include
a reference to a daughter of a coparcener.
5. Any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary
disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of
December, 2004 shall not be affected or invalidated by reason of the
2
174th Report of Law Commission of India under the Chairmanship of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, vide D.O. No. 6(3)
(59)/99-LC(LS).
 8

amendment of Section 6 of the Act.

6. Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of
subsection (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary
ownership and could be disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
7. Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family
governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate
succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and
the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a
partition had taken place.
8. The interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the
share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of
the property had taken place immediately before his death.
9. After the commencement of the Amendment Act, there shall be no
obligation on the son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any
debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the
ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law.3
10.Nothing contained in amended Section shall apply to a partition, which has
been effected before the 20th day of December 2004.4

3
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/grounds-judicial-review-123/
4
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005:
 9

4. POSITION OR IMPACT AFTER THE AMENDMENT ACT,2005

1.Equal rights to the daughters as like the Son

This act provided women with much-awaited equality and also empowered the
women. The impact of this act provided them equality and they were given rights
to become the co-parceners and even allows her to be the Karta of the family, and
now even a widow can have the right to be a Karta. They can also now dispose of
the property. It also helped in attaining equality which has been enshrined in the
constitution.

2. Affects the concept of joint family

This right is affecting the concept of joint family as among Hindus the most of the
families do not want to give property to the daughter. Therefore, their right is
breaking the relation of brother and sister or the joint family if she demands share
from the joint family property. This right will apparently increase the partitions in
the joint family, which become destructive for the joint family system.
3. Affects the property or fragmentation of land
It is adversely affecting the property. It is dividing the joint family property in
small shares even if the male members of the family don’t want partition. The in-
laws are also pressurising the women to demand partition, which is dividing the
property in small shares.
4.Indirect right to in-laws
With right to daughter or women, it is an indirect right in the hands of her in-laws.
They can anytime demand partition in the joint family property or dwelling house
by pressurising the women. Therefore, it is an indirect right in the hands of her in-
laws, which increases the property of her in laws and not of the women.
5. Destruction of social values
 10

Hindu Succession (amendment) Act, 2005 though was enacted to improve the right
of the women with respect to property and to bring her on an equal platform with
men but the framers did not foresee the repercussions of such an enactment. It has
generated a fear in the male community who are threatened by the presence of
female heirs. They look upon them as encroachers of their share in coparcenary
due to which relations among them are strained. This would further multiply the
crime against women and increase female foeticide and infanticide. 5

5. CASE LAWS

Prakash vs. Phulvati (2016)6

In this case, a suit was filed by the respondent in the Trial Court of Belgaum in 1992,
seeking partition of her father’s property (ancestral and self-acquired) after the death of
her father on February 18, 1988. In the legal suit, the respondent claimed a separate
possession of 1/7th and 1/28th share in ancestral property and some other properties
respectively. This was partly allowed by the Trial Court and a share was given to the
respondent as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act (HSAA),
2005 (effective from September 9, 2005). The respondent approached the Karnataka High
Court challenging the decision of the Trial Court. In an appeal before the High Court, she
claimed that as per Section 6(1) of the Amendment Act, she had become a coparcener;
therefore, entitled to have an equal share of her father’s property as sons. On the contrary,
the appellant (respondent’s brother) stated that the provisions of the Amendment Act are
not applicable in this case because their father died before the commencement of the
Amendment Act. Here, the decision was in favor of the respondent; therefore, the
appellant approached the Supreme Court and contested that the respondent could only get
a share of the self-acquired property of the father. The main issue addressed in the top
court was whether the provisions of the Amendment were applicable even after the death
of the respondent’s father before its commencement.

The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the respondent that a daughter becomes a
coparcener after her father’s death, irrespective of the fact that the date of his death is
before the commencement of the 2005 Amendment Act. The respondent also contended
that the Amendment Act was a social legislation; therefore, should be applied

5
http://infochangeindia.org/women/analysis/equality-among-unequals-a-critical-look-at-hindu-succession.html
6
AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 769
 11

retrospectively which was not accepted by the bench (Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice
Adarsh Kumar Goel ). The top Court said that the legislature has mentioned that the 2005
Act is applicable from September 9, 2005, thus it cannot be applied retrospectively.
Through this judgment, it has been determined that “if both father and daughter were alive
on September 9, 2005, then the provisions of the Amendment Act came into effect.”

Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. vs. Amar & Ors. (2018)7

The case was filed by the appellants against the judgment and order passed by the Trial
Court and High Court which refused to give coparcener rights to them because they were
born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. In this case, the appellants were
the daughters of Mr. Gurulingappa Savadi and Sumitrai. In 2001, Mr. Gurulingappa
Savadi died leaving behind his four children (two daughters and two sons) and widow. In
2002, the respondents (Arun Kumar and Vijay) filed a suit for separate possession of the
joint family property. The respondents denied giving any share to the daughters
(appellants) as they were born prior to the enactment of the Succession Act as well as
dowry was given to them at the time of their marriages; therefore, no share of the property
was provided to them. The Trial Court stated that the widow and two sons of the deceased
are the coparceners; therefore, rejecting the claims of the appellants. The same was upheld
by the High Court in the year 2012. Further, the appellants approached the Supreme Court
and filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the decision of both the High Court and the
Trial Court.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan gave the
judgment in this case. After hearing both the respondents and appellants, the bench opined
that without any doubt, Section 6 of the 2005 Amendment ensures the same property
rights and liabilities to daughters and sons of either living or dead parents. In this context,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that after the death of the propositus (Mr. Gurulingappa
Savadi) of the joint family, the property is equally divided among his widow and four
children. The bench ordered that both appellants would be entitled to 1/5th share of the
property each. Hence, the decision was in the favor of the appellants (daughters). While
hearing the matter in the Supreme Court, various existing judgments and orders in the
previous cases were addressed such as Prakash vs. Phulvati, Vaishali Satish Gonarkar vs.
Satish Kehorao Gonarkar, and others.

7
AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 721
 12

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Kumar (2020)8

It is a landmark judgment delivered by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stating

that “Daughters possess equal property rights as coparceners as of sons under the HSA,
irrespective of the enactment of the 2005 amendment.” It also stated that the daughters are
coparceners by birth and possess all the rights and liabilities like sons. The primary
question answered in this judgment was regarding the interpretation of Section 6 of the
HSA, 1956, after the amendment of the HSA in 2005. In this case, the verdicts of Prakash
vs. Phulvati and Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. vs. Amar & Ors. were overruled.
Conflicting verdicts were given in these cases by two-judge benches regarding the
daughter’s right as a coparcener under the HSA and Amendment Act. In the Vineeta
Sharma case, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court was convened consisting
of Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Arun Mishra, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

The case was filed by the appellant, Ms. Vineeta Sharma, against her two brothers (Mr.
Satyendra Sharma and Rakesh Sharma) and their mother (respondents). The appellant’s
father died in the year 1999 leaving behind his widow and three sons (one unmarried son
died in 2001). 14th share of the father’s property was claimed by the appellant as daughter
which was not accepted by the respondents. They stated that she (Vineeta Sharma) was no
longer a part of the joint Hindu family after her marriage. The Hon’ble Delhi Court
dismissed the appeal and said that provisions of the 2005 Amendment were not applicable
here as their father died before the commencement of the HSAA, 2005. After hearing the
contentions, the Supreme Court bench overruled the verdicts of Prakash vs. Phulvati and
Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. vs. Amar & Ors. The bench stated that HSAA gives a
daughter the right to a father’s property from birth whether born after or before the
commencement of the Amendment Act. Also, it highlighted that the daughter’s father
doesn’t need to be alive at the time of commencement to entitle property rights. At last, it
was determined 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.”

8
AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3717
 13

5. CONCLUSION

By the whole research and study, it can be concluded that my hypothesis was true.
According to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 it is stated that both sons and
daughters are entitled to an equal right on their father's self-acquired as well as
ancestral property. The 2005 amendment to this act also states that daughters have
equal corporate rights like sons in respect to ancestral property. However, the
initial Act restricted women’s rights to ancestral property, especially in joint Hindu
families governed by Mitakshara law (a traditional legal system within
Hinduism).
Thus amending Act of 2005 has removed the discrimination as contained in the
amended section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to
daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as to sons have.
Simultaneously section 23 of the Act as disentitles the female heir to ask for
partition in respect of dwelling house wholly occupied by a Joint Family until male
heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein, was omitted by this
Amending Act. As a result the disabilities of female heirs were removed. This is a
great step of the government so far the Hindu Code is concerned.
 14

6. SUGGESTIONS:
Recently passed The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 could become
successful if the legislature reconsiders some of the lacunae, shortcomings,
drawbacks and anomalies of it and if it is effectively implemented and rights given
to women under it are well used by them. Hence, on the basis of this study
following appropriate suggestions are made for effective enforcement of the law
that governing women property rights-

1) Society need to be educated

This is necessary that the society must be educated to understand these types of
provisions. The attitude of the people towards the gender equality can only be
changed by giving them education. Only in this way the Amending Law can work
in the positive sense, otherwise it will prove to be destructive for the society.

2) Awareness of Law
To achieve the object behind the amendment it is necessary that the people and
society, legal community and the women to whom the right has been given must be
aware of it. This is a new law and most of the people still do not know about the
new right given to the women. Therefore, efforts should be made to make people
aware of the law and to tell the women about their birth right in the family property
which is created by the amendment so that they become able to claim it. Legal
community must also work in the field of succession so that they can understand
the true nature of the law and become able to make people aware of it. Awareness
can also be given through educational institutions and by organizing seminars.

3) Legal-Aid Camps
This amendment mostly affects the families living in villages. They are normally
not that much educated that they can understand the technical "language of the law.
Therefore, legal-aid camps must be organized by the grass-root level organizations,
local bodies at grass-root level to tell the people, and to the women, about her right
in the property, only in that way the property implementation of the amendment is
possible.
 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 PRIMARY SOURCE: -

STATUTE: -

 HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956.

 HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDEMENT) ACT, 2005
 THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION ACT, 1950

 SECONDARY SOURCE: -

174th Report of Law Commission of India under the Chairmanship of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, vide D.O. No. 6(3)
(59)/99-LC(LS).

ONLINE SOURCES-

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/historical-perspectives-hindu-law-inheritance/ ACCESSED ON
25 NOVEMBER 2024 AT 21.00 IST.

 http://infochangeindia.org/women/analysis/equality-among-unequals-a-critical-look-at-
hindu-succession.html ACCESSED ON 25 NOVEMBER 2024 AT 20.40 IST.

CASE REFFERED:

 Prakash vs. Phulvati , AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 769

 Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. vs. Amar & Ors. ,AIR 2018 SUPREME
COURT 721
 Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3717