Hindu Succession Act, 1956 : Inheritance Laws in India – From Tradition to Modernity

Written By- Yashi Gupta

Introduction:

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is an Act relating to the succession and inheritance of property among Hindus in India. This act lays down a comprehensive structure of the system that incorporates both Inheritance and succession. Inheritance laws in India have evolved significantly over centuries, shaped by religious scriptures, customary practices, social norms, colonial intervention, and post-Independence legal reforms. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, marked a significant turning point in this evolution, introducing legal reforms to ensure equity, clarity, and justice. Before this Act, inheritance was largely governed by ancient Hindu scriptures such as the MITAKSHARA and DAYABHAG Schools of Law, which often resulted in discriminatory practices, particularly against women. This comprehensive article delves into the Hindu inheritance laws from traditional practices to modern legal frameworks, explores historical context, applicability, basic terms and definitions, key provisions, features, Amendments, and impact of the Hindu Succession Act along with landmark cases, tracing the journey from tradition to modernity in India’s inheritance laws.

The Historical Context of Hindu Inheritance

Before 1956, inheritance laws for Hindus weren’t codified, leaving them at the mercy of traditional customs and regional variations. Ancient texts like the Manu Smriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti governed inheritance practices for centuries. While these texts may hold philosophical wisdom, they were hardly fair when it came to property rights, especially for women.

In ancient Hindu law, sons were considered the torchbearers of the family. Why? Because they were responsible for performing sacred rituals and continuing the family lineage. Daughters, no matter how cherished, were often seen as temporary members of their birth family, destined to join their husband’s household after marriage.

This patriarchal system wasn’t just cultural—it was deeply woven into inheritance practices:

• Sons: Sons were considered natural heirs, received an automatic birthright in ancestral property.
• Daughters:  Women had no claim to ancestral property and relied on gifts or maintenance from the family.
• Widows: Widows could live in the family home but lacked the real ownership of property.

Inheritance among Hindus was governed primarily by two major schools of thought:

Mitakshara School:

Mitakshara is one of the distinct schools of Hindu law that has its origin in ancient India. These schools of law deal with the inheritance of property and the rights of individuals over such property.

• The Mitakshara school is believed to have been founded by Vijnanesvara, a 12th-century scholar from the Chalukya dynasty. His work, the Mitakshara, is considered to be one of the most authoritative texts on Hindu law. It is a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti, which is one of the most important Hindu law texts. The Mitakshara school is primarily followed in North India, and its principles are applied in most parts of the country.
• The Mitakshara school advocates the concept of joint family property, where all the members of the family have a right to the ancestral property. The property is passed down through the male line, and the sons have an equal share in the property. The Mitakshara school also recognizes the right of a person to dispose of his or her property through a will.
• The Mitakshara school owes its name to Vijnaneshwara’s commentary on the Yajnavalkya smriti by the name of “MITAKSHARA”.
• The Mitakshara school prevails in the whole of India except Bengal and Assam.
• The Mitakshara school is considered to be a conservative and orthodox school, and it is particularly based on the property distribution process.
• Under the Mitakshara school, there are four modes of inheritance: (1) by birth, (2) by adoption, (3) by testamentary disposition, and (4) by survivorship.
• The Mitakshara school also recognizes the concept of stridhana, which refers to the property that a woman receives either through inheritance or as gifts during her lifetime. The school holds that a woman has an absolute right to her stridhana property, and it cannot be taken away by her husband or other family members

Sub Schools of Mitakshara School

The Mitakshara School is further divided into five sub-schools, each with its regional variations and interpretations:

1. Benares school- Predominantly followed in the northern regions of India, including Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. This school is known for its strict adherence to the Mitakshara principles.
2. Mithila school- This sub-school is prevalent in the Mithila region, which includes parts of Bihar and Nepal. It has some unique interpretations, especially concerning marriage and inheritance laws.
3. Dravida school- This sub-school is followed in the southern states of India, including Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. It has some unique features, especially in the context of property and inheritance laws.
4. Maratha/ Maharashtra school-  This sub-school is followed in the southern states of India, including Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. It has some unique features, especially in the context of property and inheritance laws.

Each of these sub-schools interprets the Mitakshara ideas slightly differently, mainly due to variations in criminal powered with the aid of Kostbook

Main features at Mitakshara

The Hindu law’s Mitakshara school states that the real estate heritage is based on a joint family, followed by the ancestors. Most of the rules are followed in most parts of India, which makes it clear how the property is shared with male heirs. Some basic elements under Mitakshara are as follows –

• Rights to Coparcenary: According to the Mitakshara law, at birth, a son achieves the status of a coparcener in the family property. He is equal to his father in sharing the family’s ancestors’ property.
• Ancestral Property: An ancestor’s property automatically transfers from generation to generation and does not require a will or testament. Any male descendant of the family can claim this property.
• Partition: Any male member of the family can apply for the partition of co-ownership. After partition, each co-owner was entitled to uniform shares in Ancestral Property.
• Joint Family System: Mitakshara puts the spirit of a common family system in front, where the entire property together is with male members, and a person cannot demand full rights before sharing.
• Women’s rights: According to the Mitakshara law, women were not entitled to rights over the forefathers’ property. However, according to Hindu Succession (the proposal), 2005, equal rights to sons have been awarded to daughters on property.

Doctrine of survivorship – The “principle of survivorship” is another principle of the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law that relates to the aforementioned concept. According to this principle, the succession of a joint family is determined by the length of life among coparceners rather than by inheritance. This means that the inheritors of joint family property are the coparceners who live longer.

Dayabhaga School:

The Dayabhaga school is one of the two main schools of Hindu law in India, the other being the Mitakshara school. This school is predominantly practised in the eastern parts of India, notably in Bengal, Assam, Orissa, and parts of Bihar.

The term “Dayabhaga” comes from Sanskrit, where “Daya” means compassion and “Bhaga” means share. This school places more importance on an individual’s right to property compared to the Mitakshara school. In the Dayabhaga school, an individual has complete control over their property’s distribution. Sons and daughters do not inherently inherit their parents’ property; inheritance follows either the deceased’s will or rules of inheritance based on the closeness of the relationship.

The Dayabhaga school is renowned for its commentary on the Manusmriti (Hindu law code), authored by Jimutavahana. This commentary, known as the Dayabhaga, serves as the primary legal source for this school.

Features of Dayabhaga school of Law

• No Birth Right to Property: In Dayabhaga, a son does not come into coparcenary rights by birth. Therefore, the property is said to exist with the father till his death.
• Individual Ownership: Property is deemed to be owned by a person, and he has the right to dispose of the property according to his will. It gives much more control over distribution.
• Inheritance Rights: Succession in Dayabhaga occurs only after the death of the owner, and succession of the heirs is based on a will or testament.
• Partition after Death: Partition occurs only after the death of the father, not while he is alive, hence giving a greater degree of independence to the head of the family.
• Women’s Rights: Dayabhaga law is more progressive concerning the rights of women than another traditional law, Mitakshara. The widows and daughters had a right to get hold of the property even before the amendments made in 2005.
• Intestate Succession: When a person dies without making a will, then their property gets divided between the respective heirs in equal shares; however, he has the right to give it to whom he want to or distribute it during their lifetime if they wish to.

Difference between in Dayabhaga and Mitakshara

Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools are two distinct systems under Hindu law in the context of inheritance and property rights. The Mitakshara focuses on joint family ownership and birthrights, whereas the Dayabhaga focuses more on individual property rights and inheritance at death. Their regional and legal applications lie in several key differences.

1. Inheritance Rights:

Mitakshara: Through birth, a son gets rights to ancestral property.

Dayabhaga: Only after the father’s death do sons become entitled to property.

2. Coparcenary System:

Mitakshara: A coparcenary is formed at birth, where all male descendants are included.

Dayabhaga: No coparcenary system; it is at the time of the father’s death that inheritance happens.

3. Partition of Property:

Mitakshara: Partition can be done during the lifetime of the father, whereby coparceners can demand their shares.

Dayabhaga: Partition only after the owner of the property has died.

4. Female Rights:

Mitakshara: Limited rights for females, which rose after the 2005 amendment, because daughters were given equal rights

Dayabhaga: More liberal, because of which daughters and even widows would inherit properties even before the legal changes.

5. Regions Followed:

Mitakshara: Widespread application was witnessed in northern, southern, and western Indian states.

Dayabhaga: Commonly followed in Bengal and Assam.

6. Nature of Property:

Mitakshara: Such property was called ancestral property. No person can will it to someone else so that there would not be a question of its distribution at that time.

Dayabhaga: Property is considered the ownership of the individual, which a person can further will upon death.

7. Flexibility in Property Distribution:

Mitakshara: The ancestral property has lesser freedom with the testamentary decisions.

Dayabhaga: There is more freedom, and an individual can further handle and distribute their property.

8. Succession Law:

Mitakshara: The persons inherit coparceners, and the portion given to coparceners depends on the set of rules of a joint family.

Dayabhaga: Property is inherited individually by legal heirs. There is more importance given to intestate succession or testacy.

9. Basis of Property Rights:

Mitakshara: The law of property is based on birth in the family.

Dayabhaga: Rights are based on the death of the property owner

10. Joint Family System:

Mitakshara: The title/ownership was joint.

Dayabhaga: Title/Ownership was individual.

Examples of Inheritance Under Both Systems

Mitakshara Example: Consider a family having a father and two sons as co-parceners. When each son is born, they automatically get an interest in the ancestral property of the family. Even if the father has no wish for it, the entire property would be divided equally between the father and both sons if any one of the sons wants partition.

Example: Under the Dayabhaga system, as said, in the same family, the father is considered to be the absolute owner of the property until death. After his death, the property will be shared as mentioned in his will or, in the case that he dies without a will, among his beneficiaries. These may include sons, daughters, and widows.

Provisions of the Act (Hindu Succession Act, 1956)

This act in enacted on enacted on June 17, 1956. It was Act 30 of 1956.

Applicability of the act

Section 2 of this Act lays down the applicability of this Act. This Act applies to:

• Any person who is Hindu by religion or any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, Lingayat, or a Brahmo, Prarthna, or Arya Samaj follower.
• Any person who is a Buddhist, Sikh, or Jain by religion.
• Any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Jew, unless it is proved that such a person would not be governed by Hindu law or custom.
• This Act shall also extend to the whole of India.

(However, this Section shall not apply to any Scheduled Tribes covered under the meaning of Article 366 of the Constitution, unless otherwise directed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)

Who qualifies as a Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or Buddhist

• A legitimate or illegitimate child, where both of his parents are either Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, or Sikhs.
• A legitimate or illegitimate child, one of whose parents is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, or Sikh and is brought up as a member of the tribe, community, group, or family to which such parent belongs.
• Any person who is a convert or reconvert to the Hindu, Sikh, Jain, or Buddhist religion.

Basic Definitions

(a)“Agnate”―one person is said to be an “agnate” of another if the two are related by blood or adoption wholly through males;

(c)“Cognate”―one person is said to be a “cognate” of another if the two are related by blood or adoption but not wholly through males;

(e) full blood “half blood” and “uterine blood”―

 (i) two persons are said to be related to each other by full blood when they are descended from a common ancestor by the same wife, and by half blood when they are descended from a common ancestor but by different wives;

(ii) two persons are said to be related to each other by uterine blood when they are descended from a common ancestress but by different husbands;

(f) “Heir”- means any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under this Act;

 (g) “Intestate”―a person is deemed to die intestate in respect of property of which he or she has not made a testamentary disposition capable of taking effect;

Section 5 lays down the properties that this act does not allow to

(i) any property succession to which is regulated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ( 39 of 1925), because of the provisions contained in section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954);

(ii) any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of India or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act;

 (iii) The Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace Fund were administered by the Palace Administration Board because of the powers conferred by Proclamation (IX of 1124) dated 29th June, 1949, promulgated by the Maharaja of Cochin.

Features of the Act

• The importance of the Act lies in the fact that it provides uniform rules for succession and reduces the conflict that arose due to confusion over different rules based on the ideas of two schools. Other features of the Act are:
• It makes a uniform system of inheritance and devolution of property that is equally applicable to the areas of Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools. The applicability of the Act is explained thoroughly under Section 2 of the Act. However, it does not apply to people governed by the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
• Another important feature of the Act is its overriding effect given under Section 4. It abrogates all the earlier laws, customs, rules, etc that applied to Hindus concerning succession. Any Act or law that is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act will be ineffective.
• It has also abolished the concept of impartible estate and its succession by special mode.
• Earlier, the rule of survivorship in coparcenary property was only applicable to male heirs. Female heirs were not recognised and given the right to inherit by survivorship. But after the enactment of the Act, there has been a change in this concept. Now, if a male dies intestate, leaving behind a female heir, the property would devolve according to the provisions of this Act and not the rule of survivorship.
• The Act provides order of succession based on the doctrine of propinquity, i.e., nearness or closeness of blood, and gives four different categories that are:
• Class I heirs
• Class II heirs
• Agnates (people related to each other either by blood or adoption only through males)
• Cognates (people related to each other either by blood or adoption, but not through males)
• The rules of succession are different for the property of males and females. In the case of a male who dies intestate, Class I heirs are usually given preference over Class II heirs, and Class II heirs are further preferred over any other heirs.
• The Act further abolished the limited estate of women, and she is now the absolute owner of her property, irrespective of its source. Earlier, she was a limited owner, and the rights to her property were exercised by her husband, but now all the rights are exercised by her, and she can even dispose of her property and make decisions.
• The Act also recognises the right of a child in the property who is in the mother’s womb. (Section 20) It states that an unborn child in a woman’s womb would have the right to inherit the property, assuming that the child is born before a person dies intestate.
• The Act also clarifies that full-blood relations are preferred over half-blood relations under Section 18. It further explains the concept of shares that are to be divided per capita or per stirpes (division of shares in which a share is given to a branch of heirs as a whole) and such heirs inherit property as tenants in common. (Section 19)
• It gives a list of people that are excluded from inheriting a property on different grounds. However, it abolished all the grounds that excluded a person due to their physical deformity or capability under Section 28. It also provides that the right of an illegitimate child to inherit property is confined to the mother’s property and not the father’s property.

Devolution of interest in Coparcenary property

Coparcenary is a concept that consists of those people in a Hindu joint family who inherit or have a common legal right to their ancestral property. Such people are called coparceners. These are the descendants of a common ancestor, and they acquire their right to joint property by birth. The Act also provides for the devolution of interest in coparcenary property, and there has been a change in the position concerning coparcenary property due to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. This is discussed in detail below.

Before Amendment

As mentioned earlier, the Mitakshara school recognises two modes of devolution of property, i.e., by survivorship and by succession. The rule of survivorship applies to coparcenary property, while succession applies to the separate or self-acquired property of a person. Coparcenary property is an ancestral property of a Hindu joint family and consists of:

1. Property inherited by a person from their ancestors,
2. Any property whose acquisition was done by the coparceners with the help of the ancestral property,
3. Joint acquisition by coparceners,
4. Separate the property of coparceners as common stock.

The concept of coparcenary ceases to exist once a partition is done in a Hindu joint family. Section 6 of the Act provides for the devolution of interest in coparcenary property. Before the Amendment of 2005, if a person died intestate, i.e., without making a will, his interest in the coparcenary property would be governed and devolved according to the rule of survivorship and not succession. It further prescribed that if a person who died intestate left female heirs mentioned in Class I, then the rules of succession would be applicable, which means that the rule of survivorship did not apply to female heirs, nor did they inherit property if male heirs were present.

In the case of Satyendra Kumar v. Shakuntala Kumaru Verma (2012), the court held that if a person or coparcener gifts his undivided share in a coparcenary property as a gift and there is no evidence to show the completion of partition, such a gift will be void.

After amendment

The position of the law concerning coparcenary property has changed since the 2005 amendment. It is now a well-established law under Section 6 of the Act that daughters are coparceners by birth and have the same and equal rights as sons. She has all the rights to inherit coparcenary property like a son and would also have to fulfil the liabilities. All of this is applicable after the commencement of the Amendment Act. However, there will be no change in any devolution done before 2004. It also provides that such a property inherited by a female will be her property, and she will be an absolute owner and not a limited owner. It further states that a coparcenary property will be devolved, assuming that a partition has taken place concerning such property, in which the daughters will receive the same share as given to the sons.

The Court, in the case of Ramesh Verma v. Lajesh Saxena (2017), held that the rules of succession will be applicable to separate property acquired by a person on division by notional partition. The Madras High Court clarified that unmarried daughters are coparceners by birth and must be treated equally with sons and hence be given an equal share like him. The Amendment Act also provides that the right of married girls to seek partition is an absolute right and is not restricted by any limitation (Nagammal v. N. Desiyappan, 2006). The Supreme Court in one of the cases held that the rights of daughters as coparceners under the 2005 amendment were not limited to their date of birth. They are entitled to be coparceners irrespective of their birth date (Prakash v. Phulavati, 2016).

Types of succession

Testamentary Succession

When the succession of the property is governed by a testament or a will, then it is referred to as testamentary succession. Under Hindu law, a Hindu male or female can make a will for the property, including that of a share in the undivided Mitakshara coparcenary property, in favour of anyone. This should be valid and legally enforceable. The distribution will be under the provisions of the will and not through the laws of inheritance. Where the will is not valid or not legally enforceable, then property can devolve through the law of inheritance.

Intestate Succession

Intestate has already been defined above as someone who dies leaving behind no will or testament. When such a situation happens, then this property will be distributed among the legal heirs by following the laws of inheritance.

Rules for ownership in the case of males

Section 8 lays down the general rules for succession in the case of males. Section 8 applies in cases where succession opens after the commencement of the Act. It is not necessary that the death of the male Hindu, whose property has to be devolved by inheritance, should take place after the commencement of this Act. For example: if a father, during his lifetime, settles his property in favour of his wife and after the death of his wife, wishes that it should pass to his daughter, and the daughter dies after the commencement of this Act, then the succession will open and the property would devolve according to Section 8.

Classification of heirs:

Heirs are classified into four categories:

1. ClassI
2. Class II
3. Class III (Agnates)
4. Class IV (Cognates)
5. Class I heirs
6. Sons
7. Daughters
8. Widows
9. Adopted sons
10. Mothers
11. Sons of a predeceased son
12. Widows of a predeceased son
13. Son of a predeceased son of a predeceased son
14. Widows of a predeceased son of a predeceased son
15. Daughter of a predeceased son
16. Daughter of a predeceased daughter
17. Daughter of a predeceased son of a predeceased son
18. Son of a predeceased daughter
19. Daughter of a predeceased daughter of a predeceased daughter
20. Son of a predeceased daughter
21. Son of a predeceased daughter of a predeceased daughter
22. Daughter of a predeceased daughter of a predeceased son
23. Daughter of a predeceased son of a predeceased daughter

All of them will inherit simultaneously, and even if any of them is present, then the property will not go to the Class II heirs. All Class I heirs have absolute rights in the property, and the share of a Class I heir is separate, and no person can claim a right by birth in this inherited property. A Class I heir cannot be divested of his/her property, even by remarriage or conversion, etc. Until the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Class I heirs consisted of twelve heirs, eight of whom were females and four were males, but after 2005, four new heirs were added, of whom eleven are female and five are male.

Now we will observe who classifies as son, mother, daughter, or widow and what kind of interests they have in the property.

Son

The expression ‘son’ can include both a natural-born son or adopted son, but does not include a stepson or illegitimate child. In Kanagavalli v. Saroja AIR 2002 Mad 73, the appellants were the legal heirs of one Natarajan. Natarajan was earlier married to the first respondent, the second respondent was the son, and the third respondent was the mother of Natarajan. The first respondent obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, but still no reunion occurred between them. The first appellant claimed to have married Natarajan in 1976, and the appellants 2 to 5 were born through them. Natarajan died afterward. The suit was filed for a declaration that the appellants were the legal heirs of the said Natarajan, along with respondents 1 to 3, and they were entitled to the amounts due from the Corporation where Natarajan worked. The Court held that a son born of a void or voidable marriage that is declared to be annulled by the Court will be a legitimate child and would thus inherit the property of his father. A son has an absolute interest in the property, and his son cannot claim birthright in it. Therefore, ‘son’ does not include a grandson, but does include a posthumous son.

Daughter

The term `daughter’ includes a natural or adopted daughter, but not a stepdaughter or illegitimate daughter. The daughter of a void or voidable marriage annulled by the Court would be a legitimate daughter and thus would be eligible to inherit the father’s property. The daughter’s marital status, financial position, etc, is of no consideration. The share of the daughter is equal to that of the son.

Widow

The widow gets a share that is equal to that of the son. If there exists more than one widow, they collectively take one share that is equal to the son’s share and divide it equally among themselves. This widow should have been of a valid marriage.

In the case of Ramkali v. Mahila Shyamwati AIR 2000 MP 288, it was held that a woman who was in a voidable or void marriage, and that marriage was nullified by the Court on the death of the husband, would not be called his widow and would not have rights to succeed to his property. If the widow of a predeceased son, or the widow of a brother, has remarried, then she shall not be given the term of `widow’, and will not have the inheritance.

Adopted son

The Act has clarified the position of sons with respect to succession. He has been given all his rights as of the date the Act was enacted. Before the amendment of 2005, he was preferred over daughters and was eligible to be a coparcener but after the amendment, even the daughters are given equal rights. The question that arises now is whether an adopted son has any right to inherit property. This question has been amicably addressed by the Act. The explanation to Section 6(4) of the Act clearly states that a son, grandson, or great-grandson includes a son who was born or adopted before the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2005. This also means that an adopted son is treated the same as a natural son under the Act and has all the rights given to him.

• Class II heirs: The Class II heirs are categorized and are given the property in the following order:
• Father
• Son’s Daughter’s son
• Son’s daughter’s daughter
• Brother
• Sister
• Daughter’s son’s son, daughter’s son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter’s son, daughterʼs daughterʼs daughter
• Brother’s son, sister’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter
• Father’s father, father’s mother
• Father’s widow, brother’s widow
• Father’s brother, father’s sister
• Mother’s father, mother’s mother
• Mother’s brother, mother’s sister

If no one from the Class I heirs takes the property, then Class II heirs fall in line to get the property. In Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharjee v. Pratibha Chakraborty AIR 2010 (NOC) 646 (Gau), the property fell into the share of the defendant’s brother, named Ranjit, who was unmarried. However, he became traceless, and the property was divided amongst two other brothers in equal shares. The plaintiff’s brother called Jagadish then executed a will in favour of both the plaintiff and died afterward. However, the defendants then asked them to vacate the land, contending that inter alia the land has been purchased in the name of three brothers; namely Jagadish, Ranjit and Kalyan, defendant number 1. It was held that when a Hindu male is unmarried and he dies, and is not survived by a Class I heir, the Class II heirs would get the property.

Similarly, when in heirs in Class III and IV are there, the property would only go to them if no one from Class II is present.

• Class III heirs

This consists of the agnates of the deceased. Class III heirs only inherit the property when none from the earlier classes gets the property. An agnate is a person who is related to the intestate only through male relatives. An agnate can be a male or a female.

Rules of preference among agnates

• Each generation is referred to as a degree. The first degree is intestate.
• Degrees of ascent mean ancestral or upwards directions.
• Degrees of descent means in the descendants or downward direction.
• Where an agnate has both ascent and descent degrees, each has to be considered separately.
• An agnate having a descent degree will be preferred over the one having an ascent degree.
• When two agnates have ascent and descent degrees, the one having a lesser number of ascent degrees will be preferred.
• Class IV heirs

A cognate (Class IV) is someone who was related to the intestate through mixed relatives, in terms of sex. For example, an intestate’s paternal aunt’s son is his cognate, but his paternal uncle’s daughter will be an agnate.

Therefore, to sum up it can be said that the property of the Hindu male devolves in the following manner:

• First, to the heirs in Class I.
• Second, if there exists no heir of Class I, then it goes to Class II heirs.
• Third, if none of neither Class I or II exists, then it goes to the agnates (Class III).
• Fourth, if no one from the earlier three classes exists, then it goes to the cognates (Class IV).

Persons disqualified from heirs

The Act abolished all disqualifications based on physical deformities, mental capabilities, or morals and instead gave a new set of disqualifications. Before the amendment of 2005, remarriage was a ground of disqualification for:

• Intestate’s predeceased son’s widow,
• Widow of predeceased son,
• Widow of a brother of the intestate.

However, after the amendment, disqualification of heirs has been classified as:

• Disqualification due to murder

Section 25 of the Act disqualifies a murderer from inheriting the property of the person whom he murdered. He is treated as non-existent and is not considered a part of the line of descent (Nirbhai Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & Ors., 2017). A murderer under the Section also includes a person who aids or abets such a crime.

• Disqualification due to conversion Disqualification due to conversion

Section 26 of the Act disqualifies a person or his children born after conversion, who converts from the Hindu religion to any other religion. The only condition upon which his descendants are eligible to inherit is that they must be Hindus at the time of succession. Section 27 further gives the effect of disqualification and mentions that in case of any disqualification, the property would be inherited, considering that the person disqualified died before the intestate.

Rules for ownership in the case of females

With the coming of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, women are granted ownership of property, whether it was acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, thus abolishing their ‘limited owner’ status. But it was only in the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 that it was decided that daughters would be entitled to an equal share in the property as sons. Therefore, the 2005 Amendment serves as a defender for female rights. The property in case of a female Hindu intestate dying, will devolve through:

• Firstly, through the sons and daughters, which would also include the children of a predeceased son or a predeceased daughter, and the husband.
• Secondly, on the heirs of the husband.
• Third, upon the mother or the father.
• Fourth, on the father’s heirs.
• Fifth, on the heirs of the mother.

In the case of any property being inherited by a female Hindu by her father or mother and there is no son or daughter of the deceased (including a child of predeceased son or daughter), then it shall devolve in favour of the heirs of the father. Similarly, in the case of any property being inherited by a female Hindu by her husband or her father-in-law, and there is no son or daughter of the deceased (including the child of a predeceased son or daughter), it shall devolve in favour of the heirs of the husband.

The 2005 Amendment and Its Transformative Impact

The Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005 was enacted as a result of the suggestions made in the Law Commission’s 174th Report regarding Hindu women’s property rights. In actuality, the Commission had brought the matter up on its own initiative because of the blatant discrimination that occurred in the Mitakshara coparcenary. The Commission noted that property rules have been established for men’s benefit ever since the dawn of civilisation. Hindu women were disallowed to use their property in an attempt to dominate them, enslave them, and keep them reliant on men. Women in joint families had only maintenance rights. On the other hand, since he is a coparcener, a son is given birth rights to the family’s property. The coparcenary system, which excludes women, continued the legacy of male domination in inheritance. The Commission called attention to this injustice and asserted that it constitutes constitutional fraud. The Commission suggested amending Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 based on these results.

Changes brought after the Amendment Act of 2005

a)     Abolition of Survivorship and retention of notional partition

b)     Daughter has now made coparcener by birth

c)     Abolition of Pious Obligation

d)     Deletion of provisions exempting application of act to agricultural holdings

e)     Introduction of 4 new heirs in class I category

These changes are discussed below:

Abolition of Survivorship and retention of notional partition

Survivorship (Old law) – if a person dies then his property was distributed among the surviving male heirs of the person and the widow of the died person has not received the share in his property. But after the commencement of The Hindu Women’s Right on Property’s Act, 1938, the widow got the limited interest (inalienable) in the property of the died person up to she survives and after the death of the widow then the property was devolved. And after the commencement of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, survivorship applied where male Hindu died leaving behind the undivided interest in coparcenary property and did not leave behind any class I female heir or son of predeceased daughter but if any of abovementioned person is living then the notional partition was applying there.

After the 2005 amendment the doctrine of notional partition will apply wholly without any condition and the doctrine of survivorship was abolished.   

Notional Partition – a presumption is created that the partition of the property took place just before the death of a person, and the property will be divided according to the rules of succession.

Daughter has now become a coparcener by birth 

Daughter has now become the coparcener by birth, she can claim his right in the coparcenary property upon partition. But if the partition had already taken place before 20th December, 2004, by the registered document or decree of the court, then the daughter can’t claim his right or she cannot claim the reopening of the partition.   

In case of Prakash v. Phulwati (2016),[1] the Supreme Court held that daughters will be considered as coparcener only when their father was alive on the date of enforcement of the act i.e., 9th September, 2005. 

In case of Danamma v. Amar (2018),[2] the Supreme Court took a contrary view from the case of Prakash v. Phulwati (2016), and held that sec, 6 confers coparcenary right in favor of daughters from the date of their birth and not from the date of enforcement of the act and therefore daughters can claim her share in the coparcenary property even if the father was not alive on the date of the enforcement of the act.

In the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020),[3] the Supreme Court held that the Amendment Act is retrospective. It confers a coparcenary right to the daughter from the date of birth and not from the date of enforcement of the act. Thus, the daughter will be considered a coparcener by birth. Secondly, since the coparcenary right is by birth, the father doesn’t need to be living on the date of enforcement of the amendment act. Thus, irrespective of the fact whether the father is alive or has died on 9th September, 2005, the daughter can claim her share in the property through partition.

Abolition of Pious Obligation

Obligation on male members of the fourth degree to repay the debt if a person’s father, grandfather, or great-grandfather incurred debt for religious or pious purposes. If the debt is not paid, the creditor may bring a lawsuit to reclaim the debt. However, after the modification, this obligation is no longer in effect. If the debt was incurred after the start of the 2005 act, on September 9th, 2005, the creditor has no authority to claim it as a pious obligation. However, if the obligation was incurred before September 9, 2005, the creditor may seek repayment from the son, grandson, or great-grandson, but only if they were born before that date.

Deletion of provisions exempting the application of the act to agricultural holdings

The 2005 Amendment Act repealed the clauses that rendered the Hindu Succession Act ineffective for agricultural holding succession. Now, the Hindu Succession Act will apply to both agricultural and non-agricultural assets. However, if the agricultural holding in respect of which succession is to take place is located in the state that has passed a specific law dealing with the inheritance of agricultural land, then that specific law shall prevail over the Hindu Succession Act.

Introduction of 4 new heirs in the class I category

By the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the following individuals have been added as heirs in the branch of the predeceased daughter-

• Son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter.
• Daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter.
• Daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter.
• Daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son.

Impact of the Hindu Succession Act on Women’s Economic Empowerment

While the transmission of property can lead to more incredible wealth and prosperity, unequal and low transmission can lead to greater wealth inequality. Property inheritance is particularly significant for women who lack substantial wealth and property. In such a case, land and property might become an essential source of income for a woman.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 significantly boosted women’s chances of inheriting property. In some circumstances, it raises the marriage age for women. Furthermore, even if a woman has not inherited property, the fact that she is legally eligible to do so can considerably strengthen her bargaining position. In the Indian context, this can result in a stronger voice in marital affairs.

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 The Supreme Court held that a woman/daughter shall also be considered as a joint legal heir as a son and can inherit ancestral property equally as male heir, irrespective that the father was not alive before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came into effect.

In the case of Mrs Sujata Sharma v. Shri Manu Gupta, 2011, the court stated an unambiguous interpretation to the object and goal of the Amendment of 2005 by extending to not only including Hindu woman as coparceners but also recognising the eldest coparcener of the HUF and it can also include a woman as the Karta of that HUF and its properties.

Conclusion

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and its subsequent reforms epitomize India’s journey from tradition to modernity in the realm of inheritance laws. By codifying and modernizing these laws, the Act has fostered greater clarity, equity, and justice. While challenges remain, the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in the Act continue to inspire social change.

As India moves forward, addressing cultural resistance and empowering women through awareness and enforcement will be crucial in realizing the full potential of these reforms. The Act’s legacy lies not only in its legal provisions but in its enduring impact on society, serving as a cornerstone for a more inclusive and equitable future.