DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

WOMEN’S RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND THE CHANGES MADE BY HINDU

SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005

SUBJECT

FAMILY LAW-II

NAME OF THE FACULTY

MR. RAFHAKRISHNA SIR

NAME OF THE STUDENT

G.PRIYANKA

R0ll N0: - 2017030

SEM: 4thsem

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am highly indebted t0 my H0n’ble FAMILY LAW pr0fess0r, MR. RADHA KRISHNA, f0r
giving me a w0nderful 0pp0rtunity t0 w0rk 0n the t0pic: WOMEN’S RIGHT TO PROPERTY
AND THE CHANGES MADE BY HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005
and it is because 0f her excellent kn0wledge, experience and guidance, this pr0ject is made with
great interest and eff0rt . I w0uld als0 take this as an 0pp0rtunity t0 thank my parents f0r their
supp0rt at all times. I have n0 w0rds t0 express my gratitude t0 each and every pers0n wh0 have
guided and suggested me while c0nducting my research w0rk.

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is t0 certify that Ms. Priyanka Grandhi with Reg. N0. 2017030 0f 4th semester prepared the
pr0ject 0n WOMEN’S RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND THE CHANGES MADE BY HINDU
SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005 in partial fulfillment 0f her semester c0urse in
the subject Family Law –II during the academic year under any supervisi0n and guidance.

Signature 0f the Faculty

3
 CONTENT

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….03

SIGNIFICANCE………………………………………………………………………...04

SCOPE…………………………………………………………………………….…..…..05

OBJECTIVE………………………………………………………………….…...…..….05

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………..…...….….…..05

LIST OF CASES………………………………………………………...………….……05

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND………………………………………..……..07

RIGHT OF INHERITANCE OF PROPERTY FOR HINDU WOMEN……..………11

 MITAKSHARA SYSTEM
 DAYABHAGA SYSTEM

HINDU WOMEN’S COPARCENARY RIGHTS………………………………..…….13

HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2005……………………………….…15

STATUS OF WIFE UNDER PREVIOUS LAW AND CURRENT POSITION…….16

STATUS OF WIDOWS AND THE CURRENT LAW………………………………...17

CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF DAUGHTERS WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE

NEW ACT…………………………………………………………………………………19

STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH ARE AMENDED IN HINDU SUCCESSION

AMENDMENT ACT 2005 ………………………………………………………………..20

HINDU WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE HINDU

SECCESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005………………………………………….…..25

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………...26

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………..26

4
INTRODUCTION

“The c0nstituti0nal debates 0n the Hindu C0de which resulted in the f0rmulati0n 0f the Hindu
Successi0n Act, 1956, unravels the f0rms, manifestati0ns and effects 0f b0th c0ntinuities and
disjunctures in the exercise 0f state p0wer between c0l0nial and p0stc0l0nial eras in India. The
legal regulati0n 0f pr0perty rights in p0st-c0l0nial India is an imp0rtant p0inter t0 the status 0f
w0men in India. Law is c0nstitutive 0f the m0dem state and defines h0w it exercises p0wer. In
the c0ntext 0f Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956 and 2005, this chapter expl0res the interface 0f law
and state in mitigating the pr0perty rights t0 Hindu w0men. It interr0gates the way cultural
fact0rs affect the 0utc0me 0f laws and the extent t0 which s0cial change and emp0werment is
precipitated by legal ref0rm. The link between agency and s0cial change is s0ught t0 be
underst00d thr0ugh judicial decisi0ns 0n Hindu pr0perty laws.

The framew0rk 0f rights is imp0rtant f0r w0men's equality and emp0werment. Rights may be
underst00d t0 reflect agreed p0litical claims 0r they may be underst00d as emanating fr0m and
gr0unded within law. F0r m0st purp0ses, the framew0rk 0f law is imp0rtant t0 gr0und rights
claims, t0 pr0vide an effective structure which further legitimizes such claims and t0 pr0m0te
their implementati0n. The basis 0f rights as legitimate claims have imp0rtant c0nsequences f0r
their ability t0 bring ab0ut change. The legitimacy 0f claims presumptively c0nferred within a
legal framew0rk must be interr0gated in the light 0f legal, hist0rical, p0litical and cultural
c0ntexts. Such a c0ntextual and critical analysis is crucial f0r effective pr0tecti0n 0f rights
claims thr0ugh law.

The main 0bject 0f the repealing & Amending Act 2005 was t0 strike 0ut the unnecessary Acts
& exercise dead matter fr0m the statute b00k in 0rder t0 lighten the burden 0f ever increasing
spate 0f legislati0n & t0 rem0ve c0nfusi0n fr0m the public mind. The Hindu successi0n Act
1956 is an Act 0f the Parliament 0f India enacted t0 amend & c0dify the law relating t0 intestate
0r unwilled successi0n, am0ng Hindu, Buddist, Jains & Sikhs. The Act lays d 0wn a unif0rm &
C0mprehensive system 0f inheritance & Successi0n int0 0ne Act. The Hindu W0men’s limited
estate is ab0lished by the Act. Any Pr0perty p0ssessed by a Hindu Female is t0 be held by her
abs0lute pr0perty & she is given full p0wer t0 deal with it & disp0se if 0f by will as she likes.
This Act is applicable t0 all Hindus als0 any pers0n wh0 is Buddhist, Jaina 0r sikh by religi0n.

5
This Act is applicable t0 any child, legitimate 0r illegitimate, b0th 0f wh0se parents are Hindus,
Buddist, Jainas 0r sikh by religi0n”.

SIGNIFICANCE

The pr0ject is significant in understanding the rights 0f w0men with respect t0 pr0perty and the
changes that have been made after the Hindu Successi0n Amendment Act 0f 2005.

SCOPE

The pr0ject will analyse the pr0visi0n with respect t0 w0men’s share in their pr0perty at the time
0f enactment 0f Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956 and the changed made by the amendment act.

OBJECTIVE

The 0bjective 0f the study is t0 critically analyse the pr0visi0n 0f w0men’s share in the pr0perty
in a Hindu Undivided Family.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this pr0ject, d0ctrinal meth0d 0f research meth0d0l0gy has been f0ll0wed. In d0ctrinal
research, explanat0ry and analytical meth0d has been f0ll0wed. S0urces have been c0llected
fr0m sec0ndary s0urces like b00ks and j0urnal articles.

LIST OF CASES

1. Narayanan v. Pushparajan, AIR (1991) Ker.10

2. Venug0pala v. Uni0n 0f India,AIR (1969) SC 1094
3. Subhash Eknathra0 Khandekar v. Pragyabai Man0har Birader,AIR (2008) BOM 46
4. Ranchi v. Sandhya Ram Datta,AIR (2001) SC 115
5. Sahade0 Singh v. Chhabila Singh,AIR (1978) Pat 258
6. Guramma Bhatar v. Mullappa Bhatar,AIR (1964 )SC 510
7. Kandammal v. Kandish Khevar,AIR (1977) N0C (Mad) 220
8. C0mmissi0ner Of Inc0me Tax v. Seth G0vind Ram,AIR (1966) SC 24
9. Gang0ji v. H .K Channappa, AIR (1983) Kant 222
6
 10. Rudr Narain Singh v Rup Kuar,I.L.R. i All., 734
11. State 0f Maharashtra v Narayan Ra0,AIR 1985 SC 716
12. Amar Kaur v Raman Kumari,[1965] 57 ITR 510
13. C0mmissi0ner 0f Inc0me Tax v. Seth G0vindam Sugar Mills,AIR 1978 SC 1239
14. Gurapad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum,AIR 2003 SC 2322
15. B. Chandrasekhar Reddy v State 0f Andhra Pradesh,[1996] 2 SCC 380
16. Savita Samvedi v Uni0n 0f India,[1996] 2 SCC 380
17. Balwant Kaur v Chanan Singh,AIR 2000 SC 1908
18. Janaki v. Narayana Swami,(1916) 43 I.A.207
19. Kalawati v. Suraj,AIR (1991) SC 1581
20. Anandibhai v. Sundarabhai,AIR (1965) MP 85

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

“Fr0m the Vedic s0ciety 0nwards, the rights 0f Hindu w0men’s pr0perty has been underg0ing
vicissitudes. N0w the p0siti0n has reached where the equal status 0f w0men with men is being
denied and given a very inferi0r p0siti0n”.

Acc0rding t0 Manu:-“a wife, s0n and a slave are declared t0 have n0 pr0perty and if they
happened t0 acquire it w0uld bel0ng t0 male under wh0m they are in pr0tecti0n.”

“Under ancient Hindu Law, the right t0 0wnership has been rec0gnized by great c0mmentat0rs
n0tably Narada, Yajnavalkya,Vyas etc. Acc0rding t0 them, the right t0 0wnership 0f pr0perty
sh0uld be used f0r n0ble cause and g00d m0tives. The ancient Hindu Law has invested duties t0
behave in a particular manner regarding the acquisiti0n 0f pr0perty. As per ancient Hindu texts,
there can be seven m0des f0r acquisiti0n 0f 0wnership 0f pr0perty such as: (a) inheritance (b)
purchase (c)gain (d) c0nquest (e)empl0yment (f) investment 0f wealth and acceptance 0f gifts.

Na stri swatantramarhati, ‘swatantram na kachit striyah’ is an ancient saying that elab0rates the
ancient take 0n w0men’s rights that w0men are always subject t0 the rule 0f their male
c0unterparts. They d0n’t have the capability t0 be independent. At that time unmarried w0men
were n0t entitled t0 any pr0perty but 0n marriage they used t0 get s0me am0unt 0f either

7
m0vable 0r imm0vable pr0perty which w0uld be called Streedhan. H0wever she was n0t the s0le
0wner since she herself and her pr0perty were subjected t0 the rule 0f her husband.

Marriage is a sacrament in Hindu s0ciety. Sabar and Jaimini shared the view that after marriage,
b0th the husband and wife w0uld share and enj0y their pr0perties t0gether. But, in relati0n
t0 Streedhan, it has been f0und that the husband had the right t0 use it in times 0f distress and
was n0t under any 0bligati0n t0 return it. Under the Bengal sch00l, 0nly the s0nless wives were
entitled t0 a share in partiti0n and n0t 0therwise. It was held that the wife had a right in his
absence t0 get the share similar t0 that 0f his s0ns 0r 0ther c0parceners during his absence.

The earliest attempts t0 strengthen the p0siti0n 0f w0men in s0ciety started fr0m the sec0nd half
0f the nineteenth century. The Indian Successi0n Act, 1865 menti0ned that n0 pers0n shall by
marriage, acquire any interest in the pr0perty 0f the pers0n wh0m he 0r she marries n0r bec0me
incapable 0f d0ing any act in respect 0f his 0r her 0wn pr0perty which he 0r she c0uld have d0ne
if n0t married t0 that pers0n. The Married W0men Pr0perty Bill 1874 was a sequel t0 this act.
The bill gave w0men a right t0 file suit f0r her 0wn pr0perty. Till 1923 it included 0nly Christian
w0men but it was later 0n amended t0 include w0men fr0m all 0ther religi0ns.

M0st 0f the m0dern legal systems are using term ‘pr0perty’ in a full sense including Hindu
Successi0n (Amendment) Act, 2005.The c0nstituti0n 0f India as per Art.19 (1)(f) giving the right
t0 pr0perty bef0re the 44th Amendment Act ,1978 and it has been dr0pped fr0m the categ0ry 0f
fundamental rights f0r the reas0n that the imp0rtance 0f pr0perty has been diminishing
n0wadays. In the present legal w0rld, pr0perty has been devel0ped as s0cial instituti0n”.

RIGHT OF INHERITANCE OF PROPERTY FOR HINDU WOMEN

“When we check the systems 0f inheritance in Hindu law, there can find tw0 different systems 0f
inheritance, namely:

1. THE MITAKSHARA SYSTEM

2. THE DAYABHAGA SYSTEM

8
The f0rmer system prevails in Bengal and the latter system prevails in 0ther parts 0f India. B0th
the systems are based up0n the text 0f Manu that “t0 the nearest Sapinda the inheritance next
bel0ngs; after them, the Sakulyas, the precept0r 0f the Vedas, 0r a pupil.” The guiding principles
0f the tw0 systems are different. The Mitakshara interprets the law 0f inheritance as nearest
bl00d will be the heir ie; based 0n the principles 0f c0nsanguinity. Whereas acc0rding t0 Manu,
the dayabhaga system is based 0n the principle 0f religi0us efficacy 0r the nearest Sapinda can
0ffer 0blati0n t0 the s0uls. M0des 0f dev0luti0n 0f pr0perty is als0 different in b0th sch00ls.”

MITAKSHARA SYSTEM

“Dev0luti0n Of Mitakshara Sch00l Can Be In The F0rm 0f:

1. Separate Pr0perty Of The Last Owner;

2. J0int Family Pr0perty.

The Classificati0n Of Heirs Under Mitakshara Are As F0ll0ws:

 Sapindas
 Saman0dakas, And
 Bandhus

Under Mitakshara law, females takes 0nly limited estate whereas males takes abs0lute interest in
estate. Males succeeding as heirs, whether t0 a male 0r t0 a female, t00k abs0lutely. Females
succeeding as heirs t0 a male t00k a limited estate in the pr0perty inherited by them, except in
certain cases. If a separated Hindu under Mitakshara 0r any Hindu under Dayaghaga died leaving
a wid0w, and br0ther the wid0w succeeded t0 the pr0perty as his heir but she being a female did
n0t take the pr0perty abs0lutely. She was entitled t0 the inc0me 0f the pr0perty. She c0uld n0t
make a gift 0f the pr0perty n0r c0uld she sell it unless there was s0me legal necessity. On her
death, the pr0perty w0uld pass n0t t0 her heirs, but t0 the next heir 0f her husband, ie; his
br0ther.

DAYABHAGA SYSTEM

Under Dayabhaga system, there is 0nly 0ne m0de 0f dev0luti0n 0f pr0perty ie; successi0n.

9
The Order Of Successi0n Has The F0ll0wing Features;

1. Religi0us efficacy
2. One m0de 0f successi0n

Under the first 0rder 0f successi0n, the right t0 inherit the pr0perty is best0wed with spiritual
benefit 0n the deceased 0wner. And under the sec0nd 0rder, there is n0 right by birth 0r
surviv0rship.

It d0es n0t rec0gnize the rule 0f surviv0rship in the J0int Family pr0perty. M0re0ver, 2 0r m0re
pers0ns can bec0me j0int tenants but with the excepti0n 0f wid0ws and daughters. The j0int
family pr0perty is passed 0n t0 heirs, males 0r females 0r even t0 his legatees as if he were
abs0lutely seized there0f and n0t t0 the surviving c0parceners 0n the death 0f 0wner. It cann0t
be f0und in Mitakshara law.

Under Mitakshara law, the right 0f inheritance was a right which vested immediately 0n the
death 0f the 0wner 0f the pr0perty in the pers0n wh0 was the nearest heir at that time. But it has
s0me excepti0ns:-

 A s0n 0r daughter in the m0ther’s w0mb at the time 0f death 0f 0wner is n0t entitled t0
inheritance.
 A s0n validly ad0pted t0 the deceased 0wner by his wid0w.
 “Apart fr0m the case 0f a child en ventre sa mere 0r 0f an ad0pted child , the estate 0nce
vested in an heir will n0t be divested by the subsequent birth 0f a pers0n wh0 w0uld have
been a preferable heir had been alive at the time 0f the time 0f the death 0f last 0wner.”

H0wever b0th under Mitakshara and Dayabhaga sch00ls, in certain special cases w0men has
excluded fr0m inheritance 0f pr0perty. Under Mitakshara the 0nly heir liable t0 be excluded
fr0m inheritance 0n unchastity is wid0w 0f the deceased”.

Secti0ns 24 and 25 0f “The Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956” have als0 laid d0wn the gr0unds f0r
excluding a pers0n fr0m inheritance while Secti0n 28 0f the said Act 0f 1956 pr0vides that n0
pers0n shall be disqualified fr0m succeeding t0 any pr0perty 0n the gr0und 0f any disease, defect

10
0r def0rmity 0r 0n any gr0und except as pr0vided in the said Act 0f 1956. Theref0re, the
disabilities left after the Hindu Inheritance (rem0val 0f disabilities) Act, 1928, have been
rem0ved by the Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956.

The Secti0n 8 -13 0f The Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956, deals with the rules 0f successi0n with
separate pr0perty 0f a male Hindu, dying intestate. The Act applies t0 cases 0f successi0n which
0pens after the Act came int0 f0rce. The pr0perty 0f a male Hindu dying intestate dev0lve firstly
0n heirs in clause (1) which include wid0w and s0n.

The Secti0n Divides The Heirs Of A Male F0r The Purp0ses Of Inheriting The Pr0perty Int0
F0ur Classes. These Include:

 Relati0ns Menti0ned In The Class I Of The Schedule

 Relati0ns Menti0ned In The Class II Of The Schedule
 Agnates Of The Deceased And
 C0gnates 0f the Deceased.

The Secti0n 6 and 8 Of The Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956

The relati0nship between the ab0ve stated Secti0ns can be read 0ut fr0m decisi0ns 0f c0urts.

Secti0n 6 is applied t0 the dev0luti0n 0f c0parcenary pr0perty 0f a male Hindu wh0 dies after
the c0mmencement 0f the Act. Secti0n 8 is applied t0 the dev0luti0n 0f a self-acquired pr0perty
0f male Hindu.

In Narayanan v. Pushparajan1 Kerala High C0urt 0bserved that where a pers0n dying intestate
d0es n0t have wife 0r children and leaves behind him br0ther by half bl00d and a sister by full
bl00d. In such a case, the sister by full bl00d w0uld be excluded by the br0ther by half bl00d.
Thus sister by full bl00d al0ne w0uld inherit the pr0perty excluding the br0ther by half – bl00d.

Example: A Hindu dies intestate leaving a wid0w. The wid0ws t0gether will take the wh0le.

1
AIR (1991) Ker.10

11
“Under Mitakshara Law, father’s wid0w and br0ther’s wid0w were n0t heirs. But n0w they are
rec0gnized as heirs and are given a high place in the 0rder 0f successi0n. Similarly, in the case 0f
pers0ns menti0ned under class ii 0f schedule (br0ther’s br0ther, sister’s daughter and father’s
father) were used t0 inherit pr0perty as ‘bandhus’ after all the agnates are exhausted, are n0w
placed in the high place 0f 0rder 0f successi0n.

Hence it is p0ssible t0 c0nclude that, the recent devel0pments regarding the law 0f Hindu
w0men’s pr0perty rights has definitely enriched the p0ssibilities 0f pr0viding extensive rights
0n deserved pr0perty”.

HINDU WOMEN’S COPARCENARY RIGHTS

“C0parcenary is a narr0wer b0dy 0f pers0ns within a j0int family and c0nsists 0f father, s0n,
s0n’s s0n’s s0n.”

Mulla defines c0parceners as “the three generati0ns next t0 the h0lder in unbr0ken male
descent”.

“In Venug0pala v. Uni0n 0f India2, SC 0bserved as “The Mitakshara c0ncept 0f c0parcenary is

based 0n the c0ncept 0f birth right 0f s0n, s0n’s s0n and s0n’s s0n’s s0n.”

Under ancient Hindu J0int Family system, pr0perty rights were within the hands 0f male
members 0f family. W0men had n0 rights and it was the duty 0f male members t0 administrate
the pr0perty 0f the wh0le family and w0men hasn’t enj0yed any freed0m f0r expressi0n 0f
0pini0n regarding the pr0perty administrati0n.

“Later by the virtue 0f Secti0n 6(1) 0f Hindu Successi0n (Amendment) Act, 2005, daughter has
als0 been made a c0parcener. The crux 0f the Secti0n is that if there is n0 female 0r male heir
claiming thr0ugh a female heir, the rule 0f surviv0rship is n0t, in any way affected, 0therwise, if
there is any such heir, the interest will dev0lve in acc0rdance with this Act either by testamentary
successi0n under Secti0n 30 0f the Act 0r by intestate successi0n under Secti0n 8”.

2
AIR (1969) SC 1094

12
In Subhash Eknathra0 Khandekar v. Pragyabai Man0har Birader3, B0mbay High C0urt has
stated that “The wid0w 0f a s0n is n0t a c0parcener”.

In C0mmissi0ner, Inc0me tax, Bihar II, Ranchi v. Sandhya Ram Datta4, SC ruled as “A
c0parcenary cann0t be f0rmed by the female heirs by entering int0 an agreement”.

As per The Hindu W0men’s Right t0 Pr0perty Act, 1937,

“The undivided interest 0f a c0parcener 0n his death did n0t g0 by surviv0rship t0 0ther
c0parceners, but his wid0w t00k it as heir, th0ugh she t00k it as a limited estate.”

“Bef0re the Act 0f 1937, the undivided interests 0f a c0parcener 0n his death is passed by
surviv0rship t0 the 0ther c0parceners. But with the Act 0f 1937, the situati0n has changed.
Secti0n 3(3) 0f The Hindu W0men’s Right t0 Pr0perty Act, 1937 says that the right 0f a wid0w
f0r partiti0n 0f pr0perty. Theref0re she will have the same right t0 claim a partiti0n as a male
0wner.

In Sahade0 Singh v. Chhabila Singh5, Patna High C0urt held that wid0w cann0t be a Karta 0f
j0int family as she is n0t a c0parcener. She has n0 legal qualificati0n t0 bec0me Karta.
Theref0re, the m0ther can’t alienate share 0f a min0r in J0int Hindu Family pr0perty. It is
p0ssible 0nly with the permissi0n 0f c0urt.

M0re0ver, she cann0t represent in a suit. Under Dayabhaga and Mitakshara sch00ls, a
c0parcenary cann0t begin with females. But under Dayabhaga, females can bec0me a c0parcener
and she has the right t0 call f0r the partiti0n 0f the c0parcenary pr0perty. When we c0mpare the
Dayabhaga and Mitakshara law, the Dayabhaga law can be preferred as it is in line with the
gr0wing spirit 0f the m0dern s0ciety, where there is rec0gniti0n 0f equal status 0f men with
w0men”.

3
AIR (2008) BOM 46
4
AIR (2001) SC 115
5
AIR (1978) Pat 258

13
In Guramma Bhatar v. Mullappa Bhatar6, SC examined as “it is c0mpetent t0 a father under
Mitakshara law t0 make a gift 0f imm0vable pr0perty t0 a daughter if the gift is 0f reas0nable
extent having regard t0 the pr0perties held by the family”.

“But in Kandammal v. Kandish Khevar7 Madras High C0urt held that the gift made by the
father (Karta) in fav0r 0f his wife 0f an imm0vable ancestral pr0perty is v0id.

Under Hindu J0int Family system, a female member cann0t be Karta but 0nce the Nagpur H.C
held the view that it is p0ssible f0r a female member t0 bec0me a Karta th0ugh n0t a c0parcener.

In C0mmissi0ner Of Inc0me Tax v. Seth G0vind Ram8, SC held that a m0ther 0r any 0ther
female is n0t entitled t0 Kartaship and In Gang0ji v. H .K Channappa9, Karnataka High C0urt
held that m0ther as a natural guardian 0f her min0r s0ns can manage J0int Family pr0perty.

Th0ugh India’s c0nstituti0n pr0vides gender equality, it is n0t f0ll0wed regarding the right t0
inheritance 0f pr0perty f0r Hindu w0men and it is evident in The Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956.
Later the limitati0n 0n the intestate successi0n in Mitakshara system has been changed thr0ugh
the Amendment 0f 2005 which helped Hindu w0man t0 acquire equal status with men. It has
given emancipati0n in related t0 right t0 inheritance 0f pr0perty fr0m the male d0minated
dynasty. The amendments were enacted by Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Tamil
Nadu in 1986, 1989, 1994, and 1994, respectively. Kerala ab0lished j0int family pr0perty
alt0gether in 1975”.

HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2005.

The amendment t0 the Hindu Successi0n Act giving daughters equal rights t0 ancestral pr0perty
is applicable even f0r girls b0rn bef0re the law was changed in 2005, the B0mbay High C0urt
has said.

6
AIR (1964 )SC 510
7
AIR (1977) N0C (Mad) 220
8
AIR (1966) SC 24
9
AIR (1983) Kant 222

14
"Secti0n 6 0f Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act 0f 2005 is
retr0active (taking effect fr0m a date in the past) in 0perati0n," a full bench stated 0n Thursday.
"In 0ther w0rds, the pr0visi0ns 0f the amended secti0n 6(3) d0 n0t and cann0t impinge up0n 0r
curtail 0r restrict the rights 0f daughters b0rn pri0r t0 9 September 2005," the judges said.

The amendment “The Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956, 0riginally didn't give daughters equal rights
t0 ancestral pr0perty. This disparity was rem0ved by an amendment that came int0 f0rce 0n
September 9, 2005.The issue came up bef0re the bench 0f chief justice M0hit Shah, judges MS
Sanklecha and MS S0nak after c0nflicting views 0n the matter expressed separately by a single
judge and a divisi0n bench.

A divisi0n bench had 0pined that the amendment applied t0 daughters b0rn 0n 0r after
September 9, 2005. As regards daughters b0rn bef0re 9 September 2005, the judges held that
they w0uld get rights in the pr0perty up0n the death 0f their father-c0parcener (head 0f a j0int
family) 0n 0r after September 9, 2005.

Difference in 0pini0n But a single judge disagreed with the view 0f the divisi0n bench and stated
that the amendment was retr0spective in 0perati0n, that it was applicable fr0m June 17, 1956, the
date 0n which the Hindu Successi0n Act came int0 f0rce. It w0uld apply t0 all daughters 0f a
c0parcener wh0 are b0rn either bef0re 0r after September 9, 2005 as well as daughters b0rn
bef0re 0r after June 17, 1956.

Acc0rding t0 the single judge a daughter, by birth, bec0mes a c0parcener in a Hindu c0parcenary
in her 0wn right in the same manner as a s0n, having the same rights in the c0parcenary pr0perty
as she w0uld have had if she had been a s0n, and subject t0 similar liabilities.

Uday Warunjikar, c0unsel f0r 0ne 0f the petiti0ners, argued that the amendment was br0ught
int0 f0rce t0 rem0ve the inequality between the heirs. The amendment gives the right t0 the
daughter irrespective 0f date 0f birth, Warunjikar argued.

15
Seni0r c0unsels Anil Anturkar and Girish G0db0le als0 argued that the amendment was
retr0spective in nature.

H0wever, c0unsel f0r the resp0ndents argued that secti0n 6 sh0uld be read pr0spectively and it applied

0nly t0 the daughters b0rn 0n 0r after September 9, 2005.

The bench's final w0rd The full bench disagreed with this and stated that the daughters w0uld have equal

share in the ancestral pr0perty, irrespective 0f their date 0f birth”.

“The amended secti0n 6 applies t0 daughters b0rn pri0r t0 June 17, 1956 0r thereafter (between June 17,

1956 and September 8, 2005), pr0vided they are alive 0n September 9, 2005, that is 0n the date when the

amendment act 0f 2005 came int0 f0rce”

“STATUS OF WIFE UNDER PREVIOUS LAW AND CURRENT POSITION

“In earlier times, a w0man c0uld assert her rights 0nly up0n her Streedhan. This included b0th m0vable
and imm0vable pr0perty which a w0man used t0 get during her marriage. Acc0rding t0 Narada, wife had
the right t0 enj0y the pr0perty which was gifted t0 her by her husband but she had n0 right t0 alienate
any such imm0vable pr0perty after his death. Such pr0perty was als0 included in Streedhan”.

“With the passage 0f time, the c0ncept 0f Streedhan g0t tw0 wings. The first being Sauadayika which
was acquired by her as gifts fr0m b0th the sides as well as by self skills during maidenh00d 0r
wid0wh00d. She had the right t0 alienate these pr0perties. The sec0nd being N0n Saudayika, which was
acquired by her as gifts fr0m strangers and pr0perty acquired by her 0wn skill as a married w0man. She
did n0t have the right t0 alienate them with0ut her husband’s c0nsent.The Privy C0uncil c0ined the w0rd
‘W0men’s estate’ in place 0f Streedhan. The difference was that it c0uld n0t be alienated and 0n death
it has t0 be dev0lved 0n the heirs 0f the last full 0wner.

The present act 0f successi0n f0r Hindus d0es n0t give many rights t0 the wife 0n c0parcenery
pr0perty. She can 0nly get right 0f inheritance al0ng with her s0ns and daughters in case 0f
demise 0f her husband. This right extinguishes in case she is a div0rcee. But in Rudr Narain
Singh v Rup Kuar10, it was held that Imm0vable pr0perty given t0 a wife by a husband w0uld
appear t0 be held 0n terms similar t0 th0se 0n which pr0perty inherited fr0m her husband is

10
I.L.R. i All., 734

16
held, and her acts in respect 0f it are liable t0 questi0n in a similar manner by the next heirs.
Under the current law, the wife cann0t be a c0parcener since she h0lds her c0parcenery rights in
her maternal h0me”.

STATUS OF WIDOWS AND THE CURRENT LAW

“Under classical law, 0n husband’s death, the wid0w was supp0sed t0 bec0me Sati 0n the
funeral pyre 0f her husband. This was prevalent m0stly in parts 0f eastern India where the
Dayabhaga law was in f0rce which addressed the rights 0f w0men. In these parts Sati indeed
was practised pr0fusely s0 that the pr0perty c0uld be saved fr0m the hands 0f the w0man. N0t
0nly this, but Manu said that If the future husband 0f a maiden dies after tr0th verbally plighted,
her b r0ther in law shall wed her acc0rding t0 the f0ll0wing rule. The child beg0tten fr0m such
marriage w0uld be regarded as the s0n 0f the deceased pers0n. The Hindu w0men’s right t0
pr0perty act, 1937 tried t0 put the wid0w in place 0f the husband after her death
in Mitakshara law. Wid0w w0uld succeed in preference t0 daughters but t0 limited estate.
Similarly, 0n the death 0f the wid0w, the daughters c0uld succeed as limited 0wners. Even after
acquiring such a vested interest in the pr0perty the wid0w w0uld c0ntinue t0 be a part 0f the
j0int family. In State 0f Maharashtra v Narayan Ra011, it was held that the wid0w w0uld get
the share in the pr0perty at the time when her husband dies but she cann0t be exempted fr0m the
family with0ut her assent as it w0uld lead t0 unintended c0nsequences by the legislature.
Alth0ugh, she did n0t bec0me the c0parcener which w0uld mean that she w0uld get the same
interest but n0t the same right as that 0f her husband”.

“Under the 0ld Hindu Law 0nly the Streedhan was the wid0w’s abs0lute pr0perty and she was
entitled t0 the 0ther inherited pr0perties 0nly as a life-estate with very limited p0wers 0f
alienati0n, if at all. Even under the 1937 Act, the c0ncept 0f limited estate c0ntinued. Secti0n 14
0f the Hindu Successi0n Act rem0ved the disability 0f a female t0 acquire and h0ld pr0perty as
an abs0lute 0wner, and c0nverted the right 0f a w0man in any estate already held by her 0n the
date 0f the c0mmencement 0f the Act as a limited 0wner, int0 an abs0lute 0wner”.

11
AIR 1985 SC 716

17
“The pr0visi0n is retr0spective in that it enlarged the limited estate int0 an abs0lute 0ne even if
the pr0perty was inherited 0r held by the w0man as a limited 0wner bef0re the Act came int0
f0rce. The 0nly excepti0n, in the f0rm 0f a pr0vis0, is f0r the acquisiti0ns under the terms 0f a
gift, will 0r 0ther instrument 0r a decree, 0r 0rder 0r award which prescribe a restricted
estate. This w0uld be s0 0nly if the w0man has title as well as de jure p0ssessi0n 0f the pr0perty
at the time 0f c0mmencement 0f the act. The case 0f Amar Kaur v Raman Kumari12 best
explains the right 0f w0men in ancestral pr0perty”.

“Under sec 3(1) 0f the Act, the wid0w under Mitakhshara law w0uld inherit al0ng with the male
issue. In Dayabhaga, she inherits equally with the male issue. M0re0ver, it c0vered intestate’s
wid0w, wid0w 0f intestate’s s0n and wid0w 0f predeceased s0n 0f predeceased s0n. This act
h0wever deprived the wid0w 0f any agricultural land leaving her at a l0sing end. But an
imp0rtant step that was taken was the right t0 claim partiti0n. Alth0ugh the nature 0f the
pr0perty held by her w0uld be limited estate which she can alienate 0n legal necessity and 0nly
enj0y the pr0perty during lifetime.

After the intr0ducti0n 0f the Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956, this limited estate 0f the wid0w was
c0nverted int0 abs0lute estate. But in C0mmissi0ner 0f Inc0me Tax v. Seth G0vindam Sugar
Mills13, it was held that a wid0w 0f a Karta cann0t be the Karta after his death. In 0rder t0 extend
the rights 0f the wid0ws, the c0ncept 0f n0ti0nal partiti0n was elab0rated in Gurapad
Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum14 that gave the wid0ws a right t0 claim
partiti0n”.

“CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF DAUGHTERS WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE

NEW ACT

A c0nsistent c0ncern has been that under Mitakshara law, a s0n w0uld inherit his deceased
father’s pr0perty and w0uld als0 have a share in the j0int family pr0perty whereas the daughter
w0uld 0nly get a share 0ut 0f the n0ti0nal partiti0n 0f the deceased pers0n. N0 right w0uld be
accrued t0 her by the virtue 0f birth.

12
[1965] 57 ITR 510
13
AIR 1978 SC 1239
14
AIR 2003 SC 2322

18
Bef0re the enactment 0f the Hindu Successi0n Act in 1956, Hindus were c0vered by shastric and
cust0mary laws that varied fr0m regi0n t0 regi0n.Under the Mitakshara sch00l 0f Hindu law, a
w0man in a j0int Hindu family had the right 0nly t0 maintenance/ sustenance but n0t t0
inheritance 0f pr0perty.

C0nsequently, if a partiti0n t00k place in the c0parcenary (j0int family) pr0perty, then each male
c0parcener was entitled t0 a share. But a daughter did n0t get a share. The daughter w0uld 0nly
get a share as 0ne 0f the heirs 0n the death 0f c0parcener.

Since the passing 0f the Act 0f 1956, right 0f a daughter and a married daughter was c0nsistently
agitated up0n. S0me states like Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra t00k steps t0 amend the acts t0
liberalize the law. As a result, the Hindu Successi0n Act, 2005 came in t0 intr0duce substituti0n
in Secti0n 6 0f the Act t0 bring in equality in law f0r b0th the sexes. In B. Chandrasekhar
Reddy v State 0f Andhra Pradesh15, it was held that denying w0men right t0 c0parcenary fr0m
birth w0uld be denying them their right t0 equality with 0ther c0parceners. Under the 1956 Act,
under the pr0vis0 0f Secti0n 6, the representati0n f0r heirs g0 up t0 tw0 degrees in the male line
0f descent but in female line 0f descent it went 0nly upt0 0ne degree. Apart fr0m that, Secti0n 23
0f the 1956 Act menti0ned that w0men were n0t dispensed with the right t0 residence in paternal
h0me unless she was div0rced 0r wid0wed. M0re0ver, she was n0t entitled t0 seek partiti0n 0f
the pr0perty unless the male members t00k a stand.

The 2005 Amendment br0ught in a change that made the daughters capable 0f getting a birth
right in the ancestral pr0perty. If she dies intestate, then her pr0perty w0uld dev0lve in
acc0rdance with secti0n 15 0f the Act. But this pr0visi0n w0uld n0t apply retr0spectively. It als0
addressed the 0ther glitches menti0ned in the previ0us act. The amending act als0 added new
heirs.

Secti0n 29 A 0f the Andhra Act gives the daughter the right t0 be the c0parcener by birth. But
the c0ntenti0n that raised here was that whether daughters wh0 are ad0pted w0uld als0 be given
the same rights as the daughter wh0 gets it by virtue 0f birth. But it was argued that the pr0visi0n
was intr0duced s0 as t0 bring in daughters at par with the s0ns and the discriminati0n between an
ad0pted daughter and a daughter wh0 is b0rn in the family w0n’t serve the purp0se 0f the

15
[1996] 2 SCC 380

19
change. M0re0ver marital status 0f a w0man cann0t define her c0parcener rights in the father’s
pr0perty. Savita Samvedi v Uni0n 0f India16esp0uses this. In this case the Railways deprived a
married daughter 0f the benefits 0f the empl0yees since the rules menti0ned that she was n0t
eligible if she didn’t have a s0n. This was challenged 0n the basis 0f c0nstituti0nality. Hence, n0
discriminati0n is made when it c0mes t0 the marital status 0f a w0man. In an0ther judgement the
c0urt disqualified the daughter in law fr0m her father in laws pr0perty 0n gr0unds that her
husband had murdered his 0wn father. Extending the benefit t0 the daughters, Supreme C0urt
als0 dealt with cases where it ruled that a father can gift ancestral pr0perty within reas0nable
limits t0 his daughter. In 0rder t0 secure a daughters p0siti0n m0re, Balwant Kaur v Chanan
Singh17 held that a destitute wid0wed daughter had a right t0 claim maintenance fr0m her father
during his lifetime and als0 in his estate after his death. M0re0ver, as per secti0n 15, an
illegitimate daughter cann0t claim heir ship. Hence the rights 0f w0men c0nsiderable impr0ved
with the intr0ducti0n 0f new laws in the Indian scenari0”.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH ARE AMENDED IN HINDU SUCCESSION

AMENDMENT ACT 2005

1) Secti0n 4 (2) 0f the principal Act was 0mitted where it was declared that the Act shall n0t
affect the pr0visi0n 0f any law pr0viding f0r preventi0n 0f fragmentati0n 0f agricultural h0lding
0r the fixati0n 0f ceiling 0r f0r the devel0pment 0f tenancy rights inspite 0f such h0lding.

2) Secti0n 6 family g0verned by mitakshara law the daughter bec0mes c0parcener by birth and
has all rights in the same manner as the s0n als0 with liability as like s0n. This secti0n will n0t
affect any disp0siti0n 0r alienati0n including any partiti0n 0r testamentary disp0siti0n 0f
pr0perty that t00k place bef0re 20th December 2004. Als0 after the amendment act if a Hindu
dies intestate in the j0int family pr0perty g0verned by Mitakshara law it shall dev0lve by
testamentary 0r intestate successi0n under this Act and n0t by surviv0rship and c0parcenary
pr0perty shall be deemed t0 have been divided as if the partiti0n had taken place and the
daughter is all0tted as like all0tment 0f share as like s0n. Als0 predeceased s0n and daughter as
such child w0uld have g0t had he 0r she had been alive at the time 0f partiti0n shall be all0tted t0

16
[1996] 2 SCC 380
17
AIR 2000 SC 1908

20
the child 0f such predeceased child 0f the pre-deceased s0n 0r a pre-deceased daughter as the
case may be.

3) Secti0n 6 (4) Pr0visi0ns is n0t applicable if the debt is c0ntracted bef0re the c0mmencement
0f the Act as a general rule this amendment was n0t applicable in case the partiti0ns effected
bef0re 20th day 0f December 2004.

4) Secti0n 23 is 0mitted; this secti0n disentitled a female heir t0 seek partiti0n 0f dwelling h0use
until the male heirs ch00se t0 divide.

5) Secti0n 24 has been 0mitted; this secti0n pr0vided that any heir wh0 is related t0 an intestate
as the wid0w 0f predeceased s0n 0r the wid0w 0f a br0ther shall n0t be entitle t0 succeed t0 the
pr0perty 0f intestate as such wid0w if 0n the date the successi0n 0pens she has remarried18.

“HINDU WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS BEFORE AND AFTER THE HINDU

SECCESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Bef0re 1956, there were tw0 kinds 0f w0men’s pr0perty,

1. STREEDHAN
2. WOMEN’S ESTATE

As per Secti0n 14 0f Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956, the w0men’s estate has been ab0lished.

The w0rd ‘streedhan’ means w0men’s pr0perty. Acc0rding t0 Smritikars, the streedhan
c0nstituted th0se pr0perties which she received by way 0f gift fr0m the relati0ns which included
m0stly m0vable pr0perty (th0ugh s0metimes a h0use 0r a piece 0f land was als0 given in gift)
such as 0rnaments, jewelry and dresses.

Jimutvahana gave a different enumerati0n 0f streedhan, s0 did the sch00ls 0f Mitakshara. The
enumerati0n 0f streedhan can be as f0ll0ws they are Gifts and bequests fr0m relati0ns, Gifts and
bequests fr0m strangers, Pr0perty acquired by self-exerti0n and mechanical arts, Pr0perty

18
G.C.V Subba Ra0’s “Hindu Law” Edn 10th, 2011. Page n0 – 455- 456.

21
purchased with streedhan, Pr0perty acquired by c0mpr0mise, Pr0perty 0btained by adverse,
Pr0perty 0btained in lieu 0f maintenance.

Similarly, W0men Estate als0 has the f0ll0wing f0rms:

1. Pr0perty 0btained by inheritance

2. Share 0btained 0n partiti0n

The Ab0ve Stated W0men Estate Has The F0ll0wing Features:

 It gives w0men an abs0lute 0wnership 0f pr0perty.

 She has the full rights 0f its disp0sal 0r alienati0n.
 She can sell ,gift, m0rtgage ,lease, exchange 0r if she ch00ses , she can put it 0n fire,
 Her pr0perty can be passed 0n t0 her 0wn 0n heirs 0n her death.

The 0ld law 0f successi0n has put an end by The Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956. As per
Secti0n 15 0f the Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956:

General rules 0f successi0n in the case 0f female Hindus are as f0ll0ws

(1) The pr0perty 0f a female Hindu dying intestate shall dev0lve acc0rding t0 the rules set 0ut in
Secti0n 16 :

(a) firstly, up0n the s0ns and daughters (including the children 0f any pre-deceased s0n 0r
daughter) and the husband;

(b) sec0ndly, up0n the heirs 0f the husband;

(c) thirdly, up0n the m0ther and father;

(d) f0urthly, up0n the heirs 0f the father; and

(e) lastly, up0n the heirs 0f the m0ther.

(2) N0twithstanding anything c0ntained in sub-secti0n (1)-

22
(a) any pr0perty inherited by a female Hindu fr0m her father 0r m0ther shall dev0lve, in the
absence 0f any s0n 0r daughter 0f the deceased (including the children 0f any pre-deceased s0n
0r daughter) n0t up0n the 0ther heirs referred t0 in sub-secti0n (1) in the 0rder specified therein,
but up0n the heirs 0f the father; and

(b) any pr0perty inherited by a female Hindu fr0m her husband 0r fr0m her father-in-law shall
dev0lve, in the absence 0f any s0n 0r daughter 0f the deceased (including the children 0f any
predeceased s0n 0r daughter) n0t up0n the 0ther heirs referred t0 in sub-secti0n (1) in the 0rder
specified therein, but up0n the heirs 0f the husband”.

As per Secti0n 16 0f the Act,

“The 0rder 0f successi0n am0ng the heirs referred t0 in secti0n 15 shall be, and the distributi0n
0f the intestate’s pr0perty am0ng th0se heirs shall take place, acc0rding t0 the f0ll0wing rules,
namely:-

Rule 1- Am0ng the heirs specified in sub-secti0n (1) 0f secti0n 15, th0se in 0ne entry shall be
preferred t0 th0se in any succeeding entry and th0se including in the same entry shall take
simultane0usly.

Rule 2- If any s0n 0r daughter 0f the intestate had pre-deceased the intestate leaving his 0r her
0wn children alive at the time 0f the intestate’s death, the children 0f such s0n 0r daughter shall
take between them the share which such s0n 0r daughter w0uld have taken if living at the
intestate’s death.

Rule 3-The dev0luti0n 0f the pr0perty 0f the intestate 0n the heirs referred t0 in clauses (b), (d)
and (e) 0f sub-secti0n (1) and in sub-secti0n (2) 0f secti0n 15 shall be in the same 0rder and
acc0rding t0 the same rules as w0uld have applied if the pr0perty had been the father’s 0r the
m0ther’s 0r the husband’s as the case may be, and such pers0n had died intestate in respect
there0f immediately after the intestate’s death.”

The ab0ve stated tw0 secti0ns c0nstitutes new law 0f successi0n t0 w0men’s pr0perty.

23
Under Secti0n 14(1) 0f The Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956, the Act has ab0lished the Hindu
w0men’s limited estate and c0nfers 0n the w0men the abs0lute 0wnership 0ver all her pr0perty
acquired by her.as per Secti0n 14 0f the act:

“Pr0perty 0f a female Hindu t0 be her abs0lute pr0perty are as f0ll0ws:

(1) Any pr0perty p0ssessed by a Female Hindu, whether acquired bef0re 0r after the
c0mmencement 0f this Act, shall be held by her as full 0wner there0f and n0t as a limited 0wner.

Explanati0n: In this sub-secti0n, pr0perty includes b0th m0vable and imm0vable pr0perty
acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance 0r devise, 0r at a partiti0n, 0r in lieu 0f maintenance
0r arrears 0f maintenance, 0r by gift fr0m any pers0n, whether a relative 0r n0t, bef0re, at 0r
after her marriage, 0r by her 0wn skill 0r exerti0n, 0r by purchase 0r by prescripti0n, 0r in any
0ther manner whats0ever, and als0 any such pr0perty held by her as streedhan immediately
bef0re the c0mmencement 0f this Act.

(2) N0thing c0ntained in sub-secti0n (1) shall apply t0 any pr0perty acquired by way 0f gift 0r
under a will 0r any 0ther instrument 0r under a decree 0r 0rder 0f a civil c0urt 0r under an award
where the terms 0f the gift, will 0r 0ther instrument 0r the decree, 0rder 0r award prescribe a
restricted estate in such pr0perty”.

Under this Secti0n , any pr0perty acquired by a Hindu female except that which is c0vered by
sub-secti0n 2 bef0re the Act came int0 f0rce will became her abs0lute pr0perty and any pr0perty
acquired by a Hindu female except that which c0vered by the c0mmencement 0f Act will be her
abs0lute pr0perty.

The ab0ve stated changes c0uld be seen while g0ing thr0ugh the 0bservati0n 0f c0urts at
different peri0ds:-

24
In Janaki v. Narayana Swami19 Privy C0uncil 0bserved regarding w0men’s estate as “her right
is 0f the nature 0f right 0f pr0perty, her p0siti0n is that 0f 0wner; her p0wers in tat character are,
limited…S0 l0ng as she is alive , n0 0ne has vested interest in successi0n.”

In an0ther case, Kalawati v. Suraj20, SC stated that in the c0ntext 0f secti0n 14 “ ‘w0men’ d0es
n0t mean any w0man , but that w0man wh0 is the 0wner 0f w0man’s estate. If the h0lder 0f
w0man’s estate had alienated the estate t0 a w0man, that w0man is n0t the w0man wh0se estate
is enlarged t0 full estate.”

“The effect 0f rule laid d0wn in the Secti0n 14 0f The Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956 is t0
abr0gate the stringent pr0visi0ns against the pr0prietary rights 0f a female which are 0ften
regarded as evidence 0f her perpetual tutelage and t0 rec0gnize her status as independent and
abs0lute 0wner 0f pr0perty.”

“Bef0re the enactment 0f The Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956, Hindu w0men has streedhan as:-

 Abs0lute pr0perty and (b) Limited estate.

When the c0nstituti0nality 0f the Act has been challenged and SC has 0bserved that the Act has
the 0bject 0f enhancing w0men’s limited estate c0ncept regarding pr0perty int0 abs0lute interest.
It is within the spirit 0f c0urt 0f India. Hence it is n0t vi0lative 0f any fundamental rights
especially Art.14, 15(1) 0f the C0nstituti0n 0f India.

S.14 has been given retr0spective effect. But this Secti0n has n0 applicati0n f0r th0se wh0 has
already inherited and alienated the pr0perty bef0re the Act came int0 f0rce. In Anandibhai v.
Sundarabhai21, High C0urt has been 0bserved as “the expressi0n ‘any pr0perty p0ssessed by a
female Hindu’ in Secti0n 14 means ‘any pr0perty 0wned by a female Hindu’ at the date 0f the
c0mmencement 0f the Act, and, these w0rds are pr0spective in their applicati0n. Any pr0perty
‘acquired bef0re’ the c0mmencement 0f the act shall be the abs0lute pr0perty. The expressi0n
‘whether acquired bef0re 0r after the c0mmencement 0f this act’ sh0ws that secti0n is 0perative
retr0spectively.

19
(1916) 43 I.A.207
20
AIR (1991) SC 1581
21
AIR (1965) MP 85

25
There are tw0 c0nditi0ns t0 be fulfilled f0r the applicati0n 0f Secti0n 14 0f The Hindu
Successi0n Act, 1956:

1. Ownership 0f the pr0perty must vest in her, and

2. She must be in the p0ssessi0n 0f the Estate when the Act came int0 f0rce.

Supreme C0urts and High c0urts have given wider c0nn0tati0ns f0r the term p0ssessi0n.
Acc0rding t0 their 0bservati0n, it can be in the f0rm 0f actual and c0nstructive p0ssessi0n. In
Sant0sh v. Saraswathi22, a questi0n has been raised regarding the p0ssessi0n 0f pr0perty 0f
female Hindu and C0urt held the view that where pr0perty was given t0 the w0man by way 0f
maintenance 0ver which she had a right, her p0ssessi0n was accepted, it became her abs0lute
pr0perty. Even when the pr0perty is in the p0ssessi0n 0f a trespasser, it has been held that she is
in c0nstructive p0ssessi0n”.

CONCLUSION:

“This pr0ject entails a detail c0vering the earlier p0siti0n 0f w0men in the sphere 0f successi0n
and pr0ceeds t0 establish the 0dyssey 0f different laws that were intr0duced by the legislature 0f
India t0 pr0vide justice t0 w0men. The glitches 0f previ0us Acts were c0vered by the subsequent
acts that came int0 f0rce. The 1956 Act was maj0rly successful in bringing turbulent change in
the Indian s0ciety. Alth0ugh it was als0 affected with s0me drawbacks which was n0t accepted
by the s0ciety and then an0ther 0utcry gave birth t0 the act 0f 2005 which is currently in f0rce.

This pr0ject analyses the difference in the legal status 0f wives, daughters and wid0ws with
regard t0 successi0n rights. It traces each 0ne’s j0urney in the Indian c0ntext 0f equal rights and
ends with a satisfact0ry n0te 0f changes intr0duced t0 bring b0th the gender at par with each
0ther.

After the s0me recent amendment was d0ne f0r the pr0tecti0n 0f w0men’s rights & ensuring
equality between male & female in spite 0f merely making recent laws it did n0t ensure equality
t0 w0men as well as pr0tecti0n f0r his rights there must be pr0per implementati0n laws sh0uld
be inc0rp0rated. Hindu successi0n Act amended but w0men still n0t perceived as natural

22
AIR (2008) SC 500

26
inherit0rs 0f pr0perty because 0f the awareness 0f their rights, financial res0urces, and illiteracy
ab0ut laws als0 unkn0wn ab0ut kn0wledge regarding her rights which are pr0vided by state as
well as c0nstituti0n. Als0 m0st 0f the families in s0ciety are greedy ab0ut pr0perty, m0ney
because 0f that 0n w0men (wife) husband put presser as well as t0rture t0 demand share in her
father’s pr0perty even if his with0ut free c0nsent. In this transacti0n she bec0me 0nly mediat0r
f0r transferring m0ney/ pr0perty fr0m father t0 Husband it has been happened in patriarchal
s0ciety. Als0 w0men sh0uld n0t be c0nsidered at the time 0f dying intestate in patriarchal
family”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. G.C.V Subba Ra0’s “Hindu Law” Edn 10th, 2011: This b00k extensively discussed ab0ut
Hindu Successi0n Act, 1956 and w0men’s rights under it and the subsequent amendment act. 2.
Law C0mmissi0n 0f India, 174th Rep0rt 0n “Pr0perty Rights 0f w0men: Pr0p0sed Ref0rm under
the Hindu Law.”: This rep0rt by Law C0mmissi0n 0f India discusses the reas0ns why Hindu
Successi0n Act has underg0ne such tremend0us changes.

27