Abstract:
This article examines the devolution of property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the 2005 Amendment, with a focus on Sections 6, 8, 14, and 15. It highlights the significant shift in India’s inheritance laws, addressing the blend of traditional practices and the constitutional mandate for gender equality. Further, Judicial interpretations of the Act and unresolved issues such as the role of female Kartas are dealt with. Through doctrinal and critical analysis, it aims to emphasize the Act’s evolution and the changes that have taken place for the purpose of achieving gender equality in inheritance.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Hindu Succession Act governs intestate succession, i.e, succession without a will for Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. It classifies property into joint family property, i.e., coparcenary property and separate property. Joint family property includes ancestral property and assets acquired by family members, with rights passing by birth. Separate property can be disposed of through testamentary or intestate succession. The Act’s provisions define terms like agnates, i.e., wholly male-related and cognates, i.e, not wholly male-related, and recognize customs and usage in Hindu law. It also outlines the distribution of a deceased’s property in the absence of a valid will. It also defines half-blood relation (one father but different mothers) and uterine blood (same mother, different fathers). An heir is a person legally entitled to property when the deceased did not formalize a last will, while intestate refers to someone dying without leaving instructions on the distribution of their property.
2. DEVOLUTION OF PROPERTY UNDER THE ACT
2.1. Section 6 – Devolution of Interest in Coparcenary Property
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act defines the rights of individuals, especially daughters, in Hindu coparcenary property. This section has undergone significant changes, particularly with the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, aimed at addressing gender disparities in inheritance. Before the 2005 amendment, Section 6 was based on the principle of survivorship. Only male members of a joint Hindu family had coparcenary rights. Daughters were not recognized as coparceners and could not claim a birthright in ancestral property. Upon the death of a male coparcener, his interest devolved through survivorship among remaining coparceners, unless partition or specific exceptions applied.
The 2005 amendment of Section 6 granted daughters the same rights as sons in ancestral property. It provided for equal coparcenary rights for daughters, regardless of marital status who became coparceners by birth and also applies to daughters born before and after the enactment, as clarified by landmark judgments. It made the liability of daughters and sons the same in relation to coparcenary property. Further, partition by statutory fiction was redefined, entitling daughters to seek partition.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma 1 held that daughters are entitled to equal rights as sons in coparcenary property, regardless of the father’s living status as of the 2005 amendment. In Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar 2 , it was recognized that the right of daughters even if the coparcener passed away before the amendment. Further, the concept of “notional partition” was clarified to ensure daughters’ rights were not diluted.
2.2. Section 8 – General Rules of Succession for Hindu Males
Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act establishes the rules of intestate succession for the property of a Hindu male, ensuring an equitable distribution among eligible heirs. It applies to self-acquired property, property received through gifts, assets inherited from collaterals (such as uncles or siblings), and property inherited from a separated father. The section outlines a hierarchical order of succession: Class I heirs (sons, daughters, widow, and mother) inherit first, followed by Class II heirs (including father, siblings, and other relatives). If no Class I or II heirs exist, the property devolves upon agnates (male-line relatives) and finally to cognates (female-line relatives). Importantly, property inherited under Section 8 becomes the absolute property of the successor, owned individually and free from the constraints of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), unless new circumstances, such as the birth of a coparcener, alter its status.
This section has been clarified and reinforced through several landmark judgments. In Kirpal Kaur vs. Jitender Pal Singh 3 , the Supreme Court emphasized that self-acquired property devolves under Section 8, while in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Chander Sen 4 , the Court ruled that assets inherited from a separated father are absolute under this provision. Similarly, C.N. Arunachala Mudaliar vs. C.A. Murugatha Mudaliar 5 held that property received as a gift is succeeded as absolute property under Section 8. Additionally, L. Gowramma vs. Sunanda 6 confirmed that a sole surviving coparcener holds property absolutely until a new coparcener is born.
Section 8 preserves the individuality of the successor by ensuring property devolved is owned outright, not as part of coparcenary property unless other legal provisions apply. It also ensures gender neutrality among listed heirs, granting daughters equal rights alongside sons.
2.3. Section 14 – Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, revolutionized Hindu women’s property rights by granting them absolute ownership of property they possess, whether acquired before or after the Act. Subsection (1) ensures that any property a woman owns—through inheritance, maintenance, gifts, partition, purchase, or self-effort—is held as full owner, abolishing the earlier concept of limited or widow’s estate. Subsection (2) provides an exception for property acquired through instruments like gifts or wills, where restrictions on ownership are explicitly stated.
The Supreme Court, in cases like V . Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddi 7 , affirmed the provision’s intent to promote gender equality by uplifting women’s status in property ownership. The term “possessed” has been broadly interpreted to include legal or constructive possession, allowing women to claim absolute ownership even in disputes.
2.4. Section 15 – General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, governs the inheritance of property when a Hindu female dies intestate. Subsection (1) specifies that her property first devolves upon her sons, daughters (including the children of any predeceased child), and husband. If none exist, it passes to her husband’s heirs, followed by her parents, then her father’s heirs, and finally her mother’s heirs. Subsection (2) provides special rules for inherited property: property from her parents reverts to her father’s heirs if she has no children, while property from her husband or father-in-law passes to her husband’s heirs in the absence of children.
This section applies to self-acquired property as well as property received through inheritance or gifts. Cases like Om Prakash v. Radha Charan 8 have confirmed that even self-acquired property follows these rules, maintaining consistency. The section also differentiates between property inherited from a woman’s natal family and that from her marriage, reflecting traditional views on familial ties.
3. CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and its amendments have significantly reformed inheritance laws, promoting gender equality and balancing traditional norms with constitutional values. Sections 6, 8, 14, and 15 have played crucial roles in recognizing daughters as equal coparceners, ensuring equitable property devolution, granting women absolute ownership, and defining succession rules for Hindu females. Judicial interpretations continue to ensure the Act aligns with evolving principles of equality and fairness.
1 Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1
2 Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors. 2018 (1) RCR (Civil) 863
3 Kirpal Kaur Vs Jitender Pal Singh And Others (2015) Air (Sc) 2967
4 Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Kanpur Vs Chander Sen Air (Sc)-1986-0-1753.
5 C.N.Arunachala Mudaliar Vs C.A.Murugatha Mudallar Scr-1954-0-243
6 L. Gowramma (D) By Lr. Vs Sunanda (D) By Lrs. And Anr. AIR (SC) 2016 0 352
7 V . Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy, (1977) 3 SCC 99
8 Om Prakash v. Radha Charan, 2009 SCC 66
Leave a Reply