A Hindu Daughter’s Right to Inherit Property

Tanishta Anna Reuben,

Army Law College

History of Heirship and Rights of Daughters under Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Firstly, we must delve into the history of heirship and the rights of daughters under Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On 17 March, 2023 it was stated explicitly that an individual may pass instructions in his will as to what will happen to his property after his demise but when an individual dies without a will this is also known as intestate, then his or her inheritance is distributed to the heirs as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will provide. This article gives a short specification as to the present topic known as the ‘Hindu Succession Act’ passed in 1956 and the Correction in 2005 which introduced colorful changes that brought invariant order of race with reference to the property rights of Hindu daughters. 

Property Rights of Daughters before 2005

Before 2005 daughters were not allowed to inherit their father's property and did not possess equal rights and could not inherit property unless their fathers died without leaving a will but this was selfacquired property amounting to about half the share that a son would inherit. Therefore, daughters were not coparceners in the ancestral property. Instead, those right to property was governed by various Instead their right to property was governed by various personal laws which varied according to the individual's religion.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Overview and Application

The Hindu Succession Act enacted in 1956 is also concerned with the heritage and race of property and intestacy i.e., the natural or an unwilled race of transmission of an intestine’s property. This Act is made with reference to every Hindu, Sikh, Jain or Buddhist person excepting the State of the

Jammu and Kashmir. This Act does not apply to those who come under the special marriage act,

1954. also, it is efficiently applicable to areas of Mitakshara and Dayabhaga seminaries. Herein, there exist two renowned seminaries of the Hindu Joint Family System that bears the rules of Hindu particular law namely; Mitakshara School and Dayabhaga School. Mitakshara School of Hindu law has identified two forms of property degeneration, namely degeneration of race and degeneration by survivorship. Whereas the survivorship rule applies for distribution of the ancestral or coparcenary property or for partition of the same by the legal representatives of the deceased the race rule applies to a self-acquired property of an existent. Dayabhaga School on the other hand greatly favors the race rule. 

Abolishment of Previous Customs and Rules

According to the provision of Section 2 of this Act all the previous customs, law, rule that was applicable to Hindus was thus done away with. Before, the Female heirs at law were not recognized and survivorship rule in coparcenary property was permitted only for male heirs at law. Coparcener is the person who has an interest enforceable in a Court in the property, the share, the title, as well as signify ‘heir of law’ which exist in the Hindus joint family system. It would be seen that after the passing of this Act if a manly dies and is survived by his or her heirs then if only a female heir at law is available then property would not devolve as under the survivorship rule but as provided under the Hindu Succession Act and vittles thereof. Another four different orders given by the Act showing the order of race on the basis of the degree of consanguinity is Class I heirs at law, Class II heirs at law, Agnates, and Cognates. However, section 20 of the HSA also states' rights for a child in womb. It provides for the situation where an unborn child at the time of the death of an intestate and is born alive then he or she will have the same right to inherit the property of the intestate as he or she would have had been born at any time prior to the death of the intestate.

Disqualifications for Inheriting Property

 Separate from this there are some disqualifications for inheriting any property and the said disqualifications restrain an individual from inheriting the property piecemeal. As stated in section 24 of the Act, the following classes of widows who engage in prostitution are stripped of their chances

of inheriting land as widows. They are, to a substantial extent, classified into three orders which comprises of family’s widow, son’s widow and son’s son’s widow. Besides this, any person who commits murder or aids in the commission of murder is barred from obtaining an interest in the property of the murdered person or any other person as per the provisions of Section 25 of the HSA. similarly, section 28 of the act also provides that “No person shall be disqualified from succeeding any property on ground of any disease, defect or deformity, or save as provided in this act, or any other ground whatsoever.”

Supreme Court Rulings and Clarifications

In January 2022, the Supreme Court in Arunachala Gounder (Deceased) By Lrs.V. Ponnuswamy and Ors.[i] that the property acquired under the will of a dying Hindu passes by inheritance . In addition, the daughter has the right to inherit such properties as well as properties acquired from marriage or the division of family property. It was also declared that if a woman dies illegitimately, the ancestral property given to her father's heirs will be given to her father's heirs, and the property given by the husband will be given to the male heir if he dies without issue or intestate. The court observed that

"the main purpose of the legislature in enacting Section 15(2) is to ensure that the legal property of a

Hindu woman who dies issueless and intestate returns to the source.

 The ruling establishes an inheritance system consistent with the "rule of proximity and the right of the only surviving daughter to the separate assets of the father even before the 1956 law took effect.

Prior to this hearing, on August 11, 2020, the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh[ii]also expanded the right of a Hindu woman to be a joint heir and inherit ancestral property on equal terms with a male heir.

The Court clearly resolved the issue that the effective date of the amendment (2005) does not take into account the date of birth of the daughter or alternatively the date of death of the father, whether

before the amendment (2005) or taking office. As long as the daughter lives after 2005, she has an equal right to the property held by the son. Therefore, it does not matter whether her father was alive or not or married or not on September 9, 2005.If the daughter is born before September 9, 2005, she will become a couple in her own way. as sons. i.e. with the same rights and obligations, provided that the transmission/distribution/distribution did not take place before December 20, 2004. As long as the property was marital and has not been divided since the date, the daughter can now claim an interest on it. After hammering home, the final nail in the coffin of male privilege in the division of Hindu ancestral property, the Supreme Court removed the legal cobwebs by declaring that daughters have the same inheritance rights as sons over the property of fathers, grandfathers, and great grandparents. - grandparents immediately after codification in 1956. The court said that the daughters have equal rights to the property of the Hindu divided family regardless of whether the father was alive on 9 September 2005 and said that this right under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is given by birth. Daughters can claim compensation in the case of testamentary succession, not testamentary succession. Even if the daughters claimed conjugal rights, they could not challenge the transfer or transfer of ancestral property by existing male relatives that occurred before 20 December 2004.

Equal Rights for Daughters and Sons

Daughters would now be on an equal footing with the sons of coparceners and given equal rights of coparcenary in the father’s property from their very birth. Daughters shall also be the coparcener for whole life whether the father is alive or dead. Thus, admittedly, their marital status will not alter the rights accruing to them by way of correction, and, therefore, they shall remain a part of their father’s HUF even after marriage. All vagueness about the scope of disaffection of their share of property will be done away with when the daughters demand it. They have been granted partition of their father’s coparcenary property, asserting that they have as much rights as all other coparceners and their right cannot be taken way on the basis of a family talk. A woman, like a coparcener can alienate her share in the HUF property after acquiring it under her will to anybody she wills and to the exclusion of others. The judgements are achievements and assist in the further progression of women’s rights and the law. Indian business families have a bias towards sons; there are several business families, and daughters are not included in the business for succession. Therefore, the rulings will more generally transpire on many family agreements and asset divisions concerning family business. However, as the judgments image amend one of the discriminative social practices, it would be no lower than a behavioral change in the mindset of Indian society to fulfill the goal of gender equality.

References

[i] Arunachala Gounder (Deceased) By Lrs v. Ponnuswamy and Ors, AIR 2022 SCC 520

[ii] Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SCC 2717