Hindu Succession Laws: Evolution and Impact

Abstract Female heirs weren t granted an ancestral property share before Hindu Succession Act amendment. In this Mitakshara Rule, there is little need for drastic changes so that everybody receives equal share that has a property interest if the coparcener intestate passed away. This idea reflects to that when one among all coparceners passed away; there must be a fair share distribution between his men heirs and women heirs, specifically between his daughter and son, in relation to his undivided interest in the coparcenary land. To illustrate, A had a family property and he had only one son B, who died intestate. B had one daughter and one son. The family property was undivided when B died. Now B s children will get an equal share from the B s share i.e. half in the family s property. But prior to the Hindu Succession Act amendment in 2005, no share right is there for female heirs in the property of the family.

Introduction The Hindu joint family concept is particular to Hindus and it is legally defined. There are 2 law schools that, under Indian law, regulate the succession law of the Hindu Undivided Family: Dayabhaga and Mitakshara. The definition of both schools of law must be grasped mainly in order to grasp the notion of notional division. The joint family s male member is referred to only by Mitakshara law school and is applied to the family s son, grandson, and great-grandson. A son by birth obtains joint family s ancestral lands possession interest. Jointly, all joint family male persons have ancestral property co-ownership. A woman may be a coparcener legally after the Hindu Succession Act 2005 Amendment and is qualified to the partition. The property can t be physically exchanged in this arrangement, but the proportion can be measured in numeric form. The law school of Dayabagha is not unique to any gender. The property right prevails over the children after the father s death, but it s not immediately after birth, as in the Mitakshara scheme. The father has absolute and unlimited power till his death over the ancestral property. The property is segregated physically into particular parts in this system and is allocated to every coparcener. This is much more progressive than Mitakshara s system. The Dayabhaga system is likely to be last than the system of Mitakshara in this world of economic urge and the individualism growth.

Recent Developments The interest devolution in a person s coparcenary or co-ownership asset who died without a will was given by Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It implies that if the individual dies without a will and if he has a certain coparcenary property that will transfer to his sons, grandsons and great- grandson accordingly. This is called as survivorship when, survivorship terms, the undivided interest in the coparcenary property is fairly segregated among the deceased person male heirs. No right was provided for females in this act. In the coparcenary property, also the wife wasn t really provided any privilege as she wasn t considered an immediate bloodline of the deceased person. Male heirs were considered to be coparceners in simplistic words whereas female heirs were not (along with wife and daughter). In 2005, Hindu Succession Act, 1985 amendments were made by the Legislature. We shall speak primarily about the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 section 6. It was repeated that when there are just male heirs in a family, the property devolution will be as per the survivor. The survivorship concept wont applicable if the family has male and female heirs, then the happening of devolution to the heirs provided by law.

Major Changes by amendment Regardless of gender, all heirs have fair rights and they ll be regarded by birth as coparceners. The deceased person daughter is entitled to coparcenary property in the same way as a son s right. When it relates to liabilities, there is no distinction, just as equitable rights, so the liabilities are the same. In Mitakshara, if there is any liability related to coparcenary, then it will be equally relevant to daughter and son. Likewise, as in the male heirs case, 3 generation females The male and female heirs are liable for debt repayment on behalf of their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers. Debt redemption doesn t pass to the descendants, and if the debtor passes away, it stops. These amendments were just relevant to a Hindu whose property interest under Mitakshara law belongs to a common Hindu family and who passes away either in testament or without a will after the amendment act has been passed. There are few eligible female heirs to inherit.

Landmark Judgements Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo & Ors. 1981 AIR 1937 In this case, the plaintiff, Lalu Pratap, lodged a complaint alleging that the deceased person estate is controlled by the lineal primogeniture rule, whereby the deceased person s estate kept collectively is separated among male members though the family includes female ones. As per the Act was in effect already, the Honourable Court ruled that the law of survivorship or the rule of linear primogeniture did not apply. The old Act was also found to be retrospective in nature.

Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 549 The Supreme Court judges interpreted the statute. Before the amendment to the act i.e. before 2005, the person who was deceased died, but after several years, his daughter lodged a lawsuit to receive an equitable share of the father s property as a coparcener under the Act. The court enforced the law and ruled that the Act was intended to be potential, not retrospective in nature, so that the person died before September 9th 2005 wouldn t be protected by the amendment Act and would only be surrounded by the person died after the Act was enacted. Thus, in this case, the survivorship rule will apply and the daughter will not have any share in the father s estate.

Danamma v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343 The Supreme Court took a varied opinion as in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 549. The father, the male coparcener, passed away in 2001 and after that lodged a suit for partition with his sons the following year. The suit was opposed by the daughters and the sons argued that the father s daughters who were deceased were not qualified to any estate share as the father had died before the amended Act had commenced. The daughters claim was dismissed both by the trial court and high court on the basis that they were born before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 commenced. The Supreme Court ruled, on appeal, that the daughters were qualified to have a share of the estate. It was ruled that a relevant factor in the devolution and the estate partition was the preliminary decree.

Conclusion The patriarchy has been steadily abolished in society. Yet culture was entirely patriarchal prior to the establishment of equal rights in the world. The male heir was given first priority and was given everything: the surname, the inheritance of his parents wealth and properties, devolution, and so on. Women s rights have recently been given in the same way as men s rights. This right to equality is given to individuals regardless of gender by the different nations Constitution. If we speak about the Hindu Succession Act, the female heirs were not with rights, but gender equality and inheritance amounts in the amended Act of 2005. The primary purpose of this Act is to assure that both male heirs and female heirs are eligible to the status of coparceners in the estate of the family.