Dr RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

FAMILY LAW-II

Rights of Women in Coparcenary

Submitted to:

Assistant Professor (Law)

RMLNLU

Submitted by:

Shashank Pandey

Roll No-135

Enrollment ID-160101134

4th Semester

Section B

Date o
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would specially like to thank my guide, mentor, Samreen Ma’am without whose constant
support and guidance this project would have been a distant reality. This work is an outcome
of an unparalleled infrastructural support that I have received from Ram Manohar Lohiya
National Law University, Lucknow. I owe my deepest gratitude to the library staff of the
college. It would never have been possible to complete this study without an untiring support
from my family, specially my parents. This study bears testimony to the active
encouragement and guidance of a host of friends and well-wishers
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 2
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction to the research project: ................................................................................................. 4
Research Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 5
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 6
PREJUDICE OF SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956. ....................................................... 9
PROBLEM OF GIVING COPARENARY RIGHTS TO WOMEN .................................................................... 12
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................................... 15
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 18
INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the research project:

The paper is an attempt to showcase the Hindu succession laws as per the Hindu Succession
Act 1956 and Hindu succession (Amendment) Act 2005 as well the uncodified Hindu laws
and apply it for determining the Rights Of Women As Coparcenars in a Hindu Joint
Family.The paper will address the issues related to (i) The Laws of inheritance and
succession in the Medieval Hindu Personal laws and their implication towards the Rights for
Women, (ii)The Laws of Coparcenary for The Hindus in the present era and its implication
towards women who is a member of a joint Hindu family and (iii) Also whether the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 is an error free legislation or not?One significant idea
behind the evolution of family in human society is of providing security to members. The
Personal Laws In India work as a source of rules and regulations which act as guidelines for
people of a particular sect or religion.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines Personal laws as “The law which governs certain
aspects of a person's relationships or rights or privileges in regard to certain matters such as
succession, marriages, etc, by virtue of his belonging to a particular community or group”.
Therefore Personal Law presumes if a particular person follows it then he consents his
membership to that community. In the Indian context, Personal Law refers laws adopted by
communities like Hindus, Muslim , Christian and Paarsi community. The Judicial system in
India from the colonial era has put its effort on codifying these Personal Laws . The general
principles of inheritance in Hindu Law are codified in the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. The
act came into existence into force on 17 June 1956, with the basic objective of providing a
comprehensive and uniform scheme of intestate succession for Hindus.

The enactment of the act had to pass through certain hurdles. There were certain provisions
which were not accepted by the leaders of various branches of Hindu Law. The act abolished
“ the distinct Laws of Succession under the Dayabhaga and Mitakshara systems and provides
a uniform law, based on natural love and affection and nearness in relationship. The most
important feature of codification of Hindu Law was identification of Rights of women in the
Hindu Joint Family.

In the words of saxena, the concept of limited estate for Hindu women was abolished and was
replaced by Absolute ownership. Again the act provided for two different schemes for male
and female intestates in which the female intestates had a further divergence linked with the
source of acquisition of the property that is a subject matter of succession. However, on the
recommendation of the 174th Law Report of the Law Commission on ‘Property Rights of
Women-Proposed Reforms Under Hindu Law' , The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act
was established in the Rajya Sabha on 16th August 2007.The act primarily amended Sec 6 of
the Hindu Succession Act(1956) and provided equal Copercenary Rights to the daughter of a
Joint Hindu Family.

Research Methodology
The research methodology adopted by the researcher is a doctrinal research. However the
researcher with a view to compliment and substantiate his research paper corroborated his
study with other forms of legal research such as comparative legal research, case studies and
also critical analysis .It also throws light on the list of study materials and data and their
sources, procured by the researcher as the instrument to conduct the research. Comparative
legal research enabled the researcher to critically appreciate and compare the legal
interpretations of various courts.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Constitution of India grants equality to all persons irrespective of religion, race, cast, sex
or place of birth. The Constitution provides for gender equality as part of Fundamental Rights
which are enforceable by law. The State grants not only grants equality to women but also
empowers the state to take positive discrimination in favour of women.1 However, even after
more than sixty four years of enforcement of Constitution gender equality has not been
achieved in its true sense. Discrimination against women can be seen not just socially but also
in the laws made by the legislature itself. One such example is in the relation to women rights
of property. Post-independence the laws relating to intestate succession in Hindus are
governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This Act was enacted to lay down a uniform
system of inheritance and also to ensure equality between sons and daughters2. However, in
respect to create gender equality this act failed miserably. For instance, this Act provided for
coparcenary rights only in favour of male members.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 states that- “When a Hindu male dies after the
commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara
coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the
surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act”3. Since a woman
could not be a coparcener, she was not entitled to a share in the ancestral property by birth4.
However, there is an exception to this rule which also serves as another gender bias. The
exception is that the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary shall devolve by
intestate succession if the deceased had left surviving a female relative specified in the Class
I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class, who claims through such female
relative5. In order to understand how this provision operates as gender bias, it is necessary to

1
174th Report on “Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law”, Law Commission of
India, May 2000
2
ibid
3
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
4
174th Report on “Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law”, Law Commission of
India, May 2000
5
Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. —
(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, in a Joint Hindu family
governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,—
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son,
and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a
coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or
look at Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which deals with the general rules of
intestate succession. As per Section 8, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall
devolve firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule.
However, there are only four primary heirs in the Schedule to Class I, namely, mother,
widow, son and daughter.[8] The principle of representation goes up to two degrees in the

alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the
20th day of December, 2004.
(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her
with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act or any other law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being disposed of by her by
testamentary disposition.
(3) 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 and,—
(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive
at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-
deceased daughter; and
(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child
would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-
deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.
(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, no court shall recognise any
right to proceed against a 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, of such
son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in the case of any debt contracted
before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005*, nothing contained in this sub-
section shall affect—
(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or
(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall
be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have
been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of
December, 2004. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by
execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition
effected by a decree of a court.] (a) in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a co-
parcener shall by birth become a co-parcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the
same rights in the co-parcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son inclusive of the right to
claim by survivorship and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son;
(b) at a partition in such a joint Hindu family the co-parcenary property shall be so divided as to allot to a
daughter the same share as is allotable to a son: Provided that the share which a predeceased son or a
predeceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition,
shall be allotted to the surviving child of such predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter: Provided
further that the share allotable to the predeceased child of a predeceased son or of a predeceased daughter, if
such child had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such predeceased child of
the predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter, as the case may be;
(c) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause (a) shall be
held by her with the incidents of co-parcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by
her by will or other testamentary disposition;
(d) nothing in clause (b) shall apply to a daughter married prior to or to a partition which had been effected
before the commencement of Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990.
male line of descent, but in the female line of descent it goes only up to one degree.
“Accordingly, the son’s son’s son and son’s son’s daughter gets a share but a daughter’s
daughter’s son and daughter’s daughter’s daughter do not get anything. A further infirmity is
that widows of a pre deceased son and grandson are Class I heirs, but the husbands of a
deceased daughter or granddaughter are not heirs”.[9]

It is evident from the analysis of the above sections that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by
retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary with only males as coparceners violates the
Constitutional provisions guaranteeing equality to women. The exclusion of women from
coparcenary just on the basis of sex is unfair and unjust. To create an equal society, women
should be given equal property rights so that their basic economic needs can be taken care of
which will in long run help in creating a balanced society.

Keeping all these factors into consideration, the Hindu (Amendment) Succession Act, 2005
was enacted. One of the primary objective of this Act as stated in the Parliamentary Standing
Committee Report was to “remove the discrimination as contained in Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara
coparcenary property as the sons have”.[10]
PREJUDICE OF SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act6 deals with devolution of interest in

the coparcenaryproperty. Section 6 contemplates the existence of coparcenary property and
more than one coparcener for the application of the rule of devolution by survivorship. The
head note of the section reads "Devolution of interest in coparcenary property". The language
of the main provision to the effect that "his interest in the property shall devolve by
survivorship upon the surviving members" indicates that the devolution by survivorship is
with reference to the deceased coparceners interest alone; this coupled with the notional
partition contemplated in Explanation 1 in this section for the ascertainment of the interest of
the deceased coparcener in a Mitakshara coparcenary property indicates that there is no
disruptionof the entire coparcenary. It follows that the other coparceners, would continue to
0be joint in respect of the other coparcenary property till a partition is effected. The main
provision of this section deals with the devolution of the interest of a coparcener dying
interstate by the rule of survivorship and the proviso speaks of the interest of the deceased in
the Mitakshara coparcenaryproperty.

Now, in order to ascertain what is the interest of the deceased coparcener, one necessarily
needs to keep in mind the two Explanations under the proviso. These two Explanations give
the necessary assistance for ascertaining the interest of the deceased coparcener in the
Mitakshara coparcenary property. Explanation I provides for ascertaining the interest on the
basis of a notional partition by applying a fiction as if the partition had taken place
immediately before the death of the deceased coparcener. Explanation II lays down that a
person who has separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or

6
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act -"When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having
at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall
devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act:
Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a
male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in
the Mitakshara Coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or interstate succession, as the case may
be, under this Act and not by survivorship.
Explanation 1. - For the purposes of this section, 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, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.
Explanation 2. -- Nothing contained in the proviso to his section shall be construed as enabling a person who
has separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to claim on
intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein.
any of the heirs of such divided coparcener is not entitled to claim on intestacy a share in the
interest referred to in the section.

Section 6 dealing with the devolution of the interest of a male Hindu

in coparcenary property and while recognising the rule of devolution by survivorship among
the members of the coparcenary, makes an exception to the rule in the proviso. According to
the proviso, if the deceased has left him surviving a female relative specified in Class I of
Schedule I, or a male relative specified in that Class who claims through such female relative,
the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by
testamentary or interstate succession under this Act and not by survivorship. The rule of
survivorship comes into operation only:- (1) where the deceased does not leave him surviving
a female relative specified in Class I, or a male relative specified in that Class who claims
through such female relative and , (ii) when the deceased has not made a testamentary
disposition of his undivided share in the coparcenary property. Thus, under the proviso if a
female relative in class I of the schedule or a male relative in that class claiming through such
female relative survives the deceased, then only would the question of claiming his interest
by succession arise.

The proviso to section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 contains a gender bias. It has been
provided therein that the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara Coparcenary shall devolve
by interstate succession if the deceased had left surviving a female relative specified in class I
of the Schedule or a male relative" specified in that class, who claims through such female
relative.

In order to appreciate the gender bias it is necessary to see the devolution of interest under
Section 8 Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate
devolves according to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , firstly, upon the heirs
being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule. However, there are only four primary
heirs in the Schedule to class I, namely, mother, widow, son and daughter. The remaining
eight represent one or another person who would have been a primary heir if he or she had
not died before the propositus. The principle of representation goes up to two degrees in the
male line of descent; but in the female line of descent it goes only upto one degree.
Accordingly, the son's son's son and son's son's daughter get a share but a daughter's
daughter's son and daughter's daughter's daughter do not get anything. A further infirmity is
that widows of a pre-deceased son and grandson are class I heirs, but the husbands of a
deceased daughter or grand-daughter are not heirs7.

The retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary without including females in it meant that
females cannot inherit ancestral property as males do. If a joint family gets divided, each
male coparcener takes his share and females get nothing. Only when one of the coparceners
dies, a female gets a share of his share as an heir to the deceased. Thus the law by excluding
the daughters from participating in coparcenary ownership not only contributed to an
inequity against females but has led to oppressionand negation of their right to equalit8

7
Mahmood, Dr.Tahir, Hindu Law, 2nd ed p.57. 1986
8
Law Commission of India 174th report on ‘Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu
Law’, May 2000.
PROBLEM OF GIVING COPARENARY RIGHTS TO WOMEN
Giving coparcenary rights to women would entail some complications which cannot be
sidelined

1. Once a daughter becomes a coparcener she naturally continues to be a member of

the natal joint family and after marriage she will also be a member of her marital Joint
family9. In this connection, it is relevant to notice the observations of Mr.Pataskar
made while participating in the parliamentary debate at the time the Hindu Succession
Bill, 1955 was moved. He said:

"To retain the Mitakshara Joint Family and at the same time put a daughter
on the same footing as a son with respect to the right by birth, right of
survivorship and the right to claim partition at any time, will be to provide for
a joint family unknown to the law and unworkable in practice"10

“It needs mention, that though alien to Hindu patriarchal notions, under some of the
customary laws in Nigeria, an eldest daughter even after her marriage has a right to be head
of her natal joint family. Even in India, mothers have acted as guardian of their minor sons,
and defacto managers of the joint families on the husband’s death. Though her position as
defacto manager is recognised the dejure conferment of the right has eluded her”11

2. Another infirmity of these state enactments is that they exclude the right of a
daughter who was married prior to the commencement of the Act, from
the coparcenary property, though, the right is available to a daughter who is married
after the coming into force of the said amendment acts. As a result a married daughter
continues to have her interest in the joint property of her paternal family, if her
marriage has taken place subsequent to the enactment while the daughter who got
married before the enforcement of the law gets no right at all in the joint property of
her parental family. In Samvedi v.Union of India12Mr.Justice Punchhi held " the
eligibility of a married daughter must be placed on par with an unmarried daughter
(for she must have been once in that state), so as to claim the benefit....."13

9
B.Sivaramayya, "Coparcenary Rights to Daughters; Constitutional and interpretational Issues," (1997) 3 SCC
(J), P.25.
10
Lok Sabha Debates p.8014(1955).
11
ibId at 15.
12
T (1996) 1 p.680
13
Ibid
 3. Further it has been suggested that “once a daughter is made a coparcener on the
same footing as a son then her right as a coparcener should be real in spirit and
content. In that event section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act should be deleted”14
Section 2315 provides that on the death of a Hindu interstate, in case of a dwelling
house wholly occupied by members of the joint family, a female heir is not entitled to
demand partition unless the male heirs choose to do so; it further curtails the right of
residence of a daughter unless she is unmarried or has been deserted by or has
separated from her husband or is a widow. The law commission has also felt the need
for special protection of a widow's right to reside in the dwelling house that the family
dwelling house should not be alienated without the widow's consent or without
providing her an alternative accommodation after she has agreed to the sale of the
dwelling house.

4. Further, the need is for an all India legislation since if the Joint Family property is
in two states, one which is governed by the Amending Act and the other not so
governed, it may result in two Karta, one a daughter and the other a son. Difficulties
pertaining to territorial application of Amending Act and the Lex Situs principle will
also arise.16

“Since the subject matter of the laws of succession fall in Entry 5 of the Concurrent List of
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, Parliament as well as the State
Legislatures are competent to enact laws in this area. In case another State brings some third
model of legislation in this field, there is a likelihood of having still more diversity in the law.
This would result in the Directive Principles of State Policy not being adhered to which
require the State to endeavour to secure a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
Accordingly, there is need to have a central law enacted by Parliament under Article 246 of

14
Law Commission of India 174th report on ‘Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu
Law’, May 2000.
15
Section 23 Special Provision respecting dwelling places— where a Hindu interstate has left surviving him
both male and female heirs specified in Class I of the schedule and his or her property includes a dwelling-
house wholly occupied by the members of his or her family, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the
Act, the right of any such female heir to claim partition of the dwelling- house shall not arise until the male
heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein; but the female heir shall be entitled to a right o
residence therein;
provided that where such female heir is a daughter, she shall be entitled to a right of residence in the dwelling-
house only if she is married or ahs been deserted by or has separated from her husband or is a widow.

16
ibid
the Constitution. In such a situation the law made by these five states would stand repealed to
the extent of repugnancy, unless expressly repealed”.17

17
Law Commission of India 174th report on ‘Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu
Law’, May 2000.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
There are conflicting opinions of the various High Courts on the question
of womencoparcenary and thus a Karta. The matter for the first time came up before a full
Judge Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Kesheo v Jagannath18 where it was held that “any
adult member may be the manager of the joint family, and in case of a need a step mother
could bind her step son, who was a minor, by alienation of the joint hindu family property in
whatever character she purported to act”. The next case that dealt with this problem was
Hanooman Prasad’s Case19where the powers of the widow mother as a manager of the
property of her minor son was discussed. The Court in this case held that “the test of the
lady’s act was not who she was or in what capacity she purported to act? But whether the act
was necessary or the minor’s interest as understood by law”.

The same view was followed in Pandurang Dohke v Pandurang Garle20, where the widowed
mother passed a promissory note for necessity, as a guardian of her two minor sons. She was
a defacto manager and was held to have the managerial powers and the sons could not
repudiate the debt.

The view of female being the manager of the Joint hindu family was further strengthened
when the Woman’s Right to Property Act, 1937 was passed, which made the widow the
owner of the coparcenary interest.

But the Madras High Court in- Seethabai v Narasimha21 gave a contrary decision. In this case
the widows claimed that they were the undivided members of the coparcenary by virtue of
the operation of the Act of 1937, they objected to the appointment of the guardian for the
property of the minor sons. The Court appointed one widow, as the guardian of one minor
and a stranger was appointed as the guardian of the other. None of the widows, it was held
could be the manager. It was held that to be a manager one must be a pukka coparcener, a
male with a birth right and not a mere statutory interest. This decision took a step back and
adversely affected the position of women. The similar strand of thought was followed in
Mayuri Padhano v Lokananidhi Lingaraj22 where it was held that a mother, when the husband
is alive, cannot be a manager. She might indeed act as a guardian of her son, if her husband
was dead and perhaps act as a defacto guardian. But as a manager she had no power

18
[1926] AIR Nag. 81
19
Hanooman Prasad Pandey V. Musumoot Baboee (1856)
20
[1947] AIR Nag. 178
21
AIR 1945 Mad. 306
22
[1956] AIR Ori. 1.
whatsoever. The principle that a woman could be a manager was decisively rejected. The
High Court of Patna has asserted the same view in Sheogulam v Kishan Choudhur23, it was
denied that a mother of a minor son, during the long absence of her husband might act as a
‘Karta’ and incur debts for family purposes and further that such loans would not be binding
up on the family. The matter finally came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Commissioner of I.T. v Seth Govindram Sugar Mills 24, where it upheld the view taken by the
Madras High Court and has overruled the decision of Nagpur High Court as they felt that it
was contrary to the established rules in the dharmashashtras.

23
[1961] AIR Pat. 212.
24
AIR 1966 SC 24.
CONCLUSION
Hindu Succession Laws have certainly become dynamic with the passage of time. Women's
Right to Property have gradually been recognised by the Codified Hindu Personal laws. With
The Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act 2005, Hindu women are been empowered equal
Rights when compared to male in the matter of Coparcenary by birth..

However, there still exists some grey areas on which the provision of the act are not clear.
One such area is when a Hindu male marries a Non -Hindu female then an offspring of theirs
will not be regarded as a Hindu Joint Family Coparcenar. Again, the matter of abolishing
Saviour ship by birth for male child and the lack of clarity on this matter for a female child is
also a cause of concern.

Similarly, there is confusion in on the matters of Agricultural Property. The Amending Act
also does not provide any clear ruling on the matter of devolution of Property of a female. If a
Hindu Female gets a share of her coparcenary property, marries and dies, then who would
succeed to her interest -her husband or her natal family members? The interest of the female
coparcener should ideally be given to her husband and her children.The issue concerning the
Women's Rights in a patriarchial Hindu society is really concerning.

Formulation of legislations like Hindu Succession Act 1956 and The Hindu
succession(Amendment) Act 2005 largely helps in the establishment of the basic
constitutional tool of Right to Equality. However, as mentioned above the statute must avoid
confusion on certain matters. Again on the other hand the women community must be made
aware of their rights so that they can utilise it for their benefit.
REFERENCES
Statute

a. Hindu Succession Act(1956)b. Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act (2005)c. Hindu

Women's Right To Property Act 1937

Articles, Notes And Comments In Journals, Books And Colloquia

a.8 Halsbury's laws of India, 274-331(2007)b. Dayabhaga D.B III 1.1, 1.9C. Manusmriti M.S
IX 104, 118d. SC II PP: 625-627e. Yajnavalkya Y.S II 117, 124

Books

a. Ashutosh Mathur, Medieval Hindu Law, 62- 112, Cambridge University Press,b. G.C.V.
Subba Rao, Family Law, Gogia Law Publishersc. Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage, 840, (12th
ed.1986)d. Mulla on Hindu Law, 201(17th ed. 1999)e. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law
Lectures Family Law II, Lexis Nexis Butterworths

Statutes

a. Commissioner Income Tax v Govind Ram Sugar Mills, AIR 1966 SC 240b. Anar devi and
ors v Parmeshwari Devi and ors SC 4171 (2006)c. Sheela Devi and ors v Lal Chand and ors
SC 4326 (2006)

Miscellaneous

a. P. Ramanatha Aiyer, Concise Law Dictionary, 872, (3rd ed. Repriint 2007)