“LIMITATION ON THE RIGHTS OF COPARCENERS TO ALIENATE

JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY”

A Project submitted in partial fulfilment of the course FAMILY LAW-II,

4th SEMESTER during the Academic Year 2019-2020

SUBMITTED BY:
Rishabh Sinha
Roll No. - 2034
B.B.A., LL.B.(Hons.)

SUBMITTED TO:
Mrs. Pooja Srivastava
FACULTY OF FAMILY LAW-II

MARCH, 2020
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAYAYA NAGAR,
MEETHAPUR, PATNA-800001
 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.B.A. ,LL.B. (Hons.) Project Report entitled “
LIMITATION ON THE RIGHTS OF COPARCENERS TO ALIENTAE JOINT FAMILY
PROPERTY” submitted at Chanakya National Law University; Patna is an authentic record
of my work carried out under the supervision of Mrs.Pooja Srivastava. I have not submitted
this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents
of my Project Report.

(Signature of the Candidate)

Rishabh Sinha
Chanakya National Law University, Patna
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“IF YOU WANT TO WALK FAST GO ALONE

IF YOU WANT TO WALK FAR GO TOGETHER”
A project is a joint endeavour which is to be accomplished with utmost compassion, diligence
and with support of all. Gratitude is a noble response of one‟s soul to kindness or help
generously rendered by another and its acknowledgement is the duty and joyance. I am
overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge from the bottom of my
heart to all those who have helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity
and into something concrete effectively and moreover on time.
This project would not have been completed without combined effort of my revered Family
Law –II Faculty Mrs.Pooja Srivastava whose support and guidance was the driving force to
successfully complete this project. I express my heartfelt gratitude to her. Thanks are also due
to my parents, family, siblings, my dear friends and all those who helped me in this project in
any way. Last but not the least; I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our Faculty
for providing us with such a golden opportunity to showcase our talents. Moreover, thanks to
all those who helped me in any way be it words, presence, encouragement or blessings...

- Rishabh Sinha
- 4th Semester
- B.B.A., LL.B.(Hons
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration…………………………………………………………………………………….i

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………………………….ii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………....……………….iii

Aims and Objectives……………………………………………………………………….…iv

Hypothesis.................................................................................................................................iv

Research Methodology......................................................................................................…...iv

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….1-2

2. Rights of Coparceners and their Limitations(Karta Limitation)..........................…...3-5

3. Coparcenery Property or Joint Family Property.........................................................6-8

4. Separate Property or Self Acquired Property………................................………....9-10

5. Differences between coparcenary property and separate property......................11-13

6. Conclusion and suggestions............................................................................14

Bibliography……………………………...………………………….....………........………15
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The Aims and Objectives of this project are:

1. The researcher tends to analyze the limitation on the rights of coparcenres for
limitation.
2. The researcher tends to throw light on coparcenary and separate property.
3. The researcher tends to emphasize the characteristics of joint family property.

HYPOTHESIS

The researcher has taken the following hypothesis:

1) Coparceners have the full right to alienate the property.
2) Women cannot become a coparcener.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

For this study, doctrinal research method was utilised. Various articles, e-articles, reports and
books from library were used extensively in framing all the data and figures in appropriate
form, essential for this study.
The method used in writing this research is primarily analytical.
 INTRODUCTION

Property has always been a tangled issue amongst the family members which leads to conflict in
the society. The rights over properties changes with the birth and death of the family members.
Alienation of such property can be defined as the transfer of property through gifts, wills or
mortgage. The ownership is incomplete without having a right to alienate that property.
However, in a joint family property all the coparceners have an equal right over the property and
thus it cannot be alienated without the authorization of all. Karta is the manager of the Hindu
family and therefore possess some different rights. However, this doesn‟t mean that property will
be treated as his whole and he also has interest like other coparceners. Alienation of a property
for the common good of the family is a classic example of joint hindu families in India which is
always ready to accommodate each other. Transfer of property without any justification is the
ground for studying such laws. Whenever the karta steps out of his power and does something
which is prejudicial to the interest of other coparceners the court steps in and gives the
coparceners right to challenge such unauthorized alienation which shall be discussed further in
detail. This project deals with the alienations by different members of the family, validity of the
alienation, conditions related to alienation, challenges to an unauthorized alienation, burden of
proof and rights of an alienee. This project mainly focuses upon the limitations of coparceners
for the alienation of property without any necessity, benefit of estate or to fulfill indispensable
duties which are commonly known as unauthorized alienation.

This project addresses itself to one of the anomalous situation that is faced with the burden of
proof in challenging the alienations. Unauthorized alienation of property means the transfer of
the property without any justification which leads to invalidation of such transfer. As discussed
earlier alienation can be done through will, gifts or mortgage. As we know that karta is the
manager of the hindu families and therefore works for the welfare of the family. Alienation can
be defined as “it includes as any disposal by the father, karta, coparcener or the sole surviving
coparcener of a part or the whole of the joint family property by any act or omission, voluntary
or involuntary, intended to take part in presentor future.
It is always said that the power of hindu joint family vests in the karta. But when it comes to
property matters, he is not the sole owner of the property and therefore power of alienation can
be exercised by him only in certain cases. The powers of the karta under dayabhaga school are
similar to that under mitakshara law. The alienation of property by karta can be done only in
three circumstances i.e. necessity (Apatkale), benefit of the estate or for performance of
indispensable duties. Now the question comes that how such authorization can be made? It can
be done either expressly or judicially. Where some coparceners are major coparceners, he is not
expressly authorized to do so, though this can be of help in filling the gaps to a limited extent,
while providing legal necessity.
If the father, karta, coparcener, sole surviving coparceners steps out of their power and makes
any alienation then such alienation can be challenged and set aside before it becomes time
barred. According to Article 126 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 the period of limitation for a
son to challenge his father‟s alienation is 12 months and as per Article 144 the period of
limitation for coparceners to challenge the alienation made by karta is 6 years.
It is a well settled law that when the validity of alienation is challenged before a court, the
burden of proving that the transfer is valid lies on the alienee. Alienee is the person in whose
favour karta has made the transfer. This is not subjected to any exceptions. When we deal with
this the obvious thought that comes up is why alienee should be made liable? How is he
supposed to know the family matters of Karta?
Why should he prove that the transfer fell within the three grounds i.e. the legal necessity,
benefit of estate or for performance of indispensable duties? This is always justified on the
ground that it is prejudicial to the interest of the coparceners and alienee is seen as a beneficiary.
If we critically analyze this there are many problems with such interpretation.
 RIGHTS OF COPARCNERS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS(KARTA LIMITATION)

Rights of Coparceners:
1) Community of interest and unity of possession- No coparcener is entitled to exclusive
possession of any part of the coparcenary property, nor is any coparcener entitled to any special
interest in such property.
2) Share of Income-A member of a joint family cannot, at any given moment, predicate what his
share in the joint family property is. Such a share becomes defined only when a partition takes
place. The reason is that his share is a fluctuating one, which is liable to be increased by deaths,
and diminished by births, in the family. It follows from this that no member is also entitled to
any definite share of the income of the property. According to the principles governing a Hindu
undivided family, the whole income of the joint family property must be brought to the common
purse of the family, and then dealt with as per the rights of the members to enjoy such property.
3) Joint possession and enjoyment-Each coparcener is entitled to joint possession and enjoyment
of the family property. If he is excluded from doing so, he can enforce this right by way of a suit.
He is not, however, bound to sue for partition. In a suit for joint possession, the Court would
declare his right to joint possession, and further direct that he should be put into such joint
possession.
4) Right against exclusion from joint family property-If a coparcener is excluded by other
coparceners from the use or enjoyment of the joint property, the Court may, by an injunction,
restrain such coparceners from obstructing him in the enjoyment of the property.
5) Right of maintenance and other necessary expenses-Every coparcener is entitled to be
maintained out of the estate of the family. For this purpose, he is entitled to receive, from the
coparcenary property, maintenance for himself, his wife and children, as also for those whom he
is bound to maintain. Besides such maintenance, a coparcener is also entitled to get money from
the coparcenary property for the purpose of the marriage of his children and for the performance
of the sradha and upanayana ceremonies.
6) Right to restrain improper acts-Every coparcener has the right to restrain improper acts on the
part of other coparceners, where such acts cause substantial injury to his rights as a member of
the family. Thus, if a coparcener erects a building on land belonging to the joint family, so as to
materially alter the condition of the property, he may be restrained by an injunction from doing
so.
7) Right to enforce partition: Every adult coparcener is entitled to enforce a partition of a
coparcenary property. He cannot, however, file a suit for a declaration of the amount of his share,
as he has no definite share, until partition. In one leading case, the Bombay High Court held that
there is one important exception to the above rule, namely, that where the father is joint with his
own father or other collateral members, a son cannot enforce a partition against the will of the
father. This exception is also recognised in the State of Punjab also, but not in other parts of
India1 .
8) Right to account- A coparcener has no right to ask for accounts from the manager as regards
his dealing with the coparcenary property and the income thereof, unless of course, such
coparcener is suing for a partition, in which case, he would have such a right.
9) Right of alienation- No coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in coparcenary
property by gift. Nor can he alienate such interest for value, except in the State of Tamil Nadu,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat. An unauthorised alienation is not however,
absolutely void; it is merely voidable at the option of the other coparceners.
10) Right to impeach unauthorised alienations- Every coparcener has the right to impeach
alienation by the manager, or any other coparcener, in excess of their powers. Such alienation
can be impeached only by a coparcener or by a transferee who has acquired the entire interest of
a joint family in the property alienated.
11) Right to renounce- A coparcener has the right to renounce his interest in the coparcenary
property. He can do so by expressing his intention to that effect, and if he does so, no other
formalities would be necessary. Such a renunciation must, however, be in favour of the whole
body of coparceners. Even if he renounces in favour of one individual member, the renunciation
will operate for the benefit of all the coparceners.
12) Right of survivorship- All the coparceners of a joint Hindu family have a right of
survivorship in respect of the joint family property. Thus, if one coparcener dies, his undivided
interest in such family passes by survivorship to the remaining coparceners, and not to his heirs
by succession.

1
Appaji v. Ramchandra, 16 Bom. 29
13) Right to make self-acquisition- A coparcener has the right to acquire property of his own, and
keep it as his self-acquired property. The other coparceners would have ho claim on such
property.
14) Right to manage- A coparcener, who is the senior-most member of the family, is entitled to
manage the coparcenary property and business, and to look after the interests of the family on
behalf of the other coparceners, unless he is incapacitated from doing so by illness or other like
and sufficient cause.
 COPARCENERY PROPERTY OR JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY
Before going through property we must know that who all are the members or part of joint
2
family and who all constitutes a joint family. By definition a joint hindu family consists of all
persons lineally descended from a common ancestor including their wives and daughters. The
common ancestor is necessary for bringing a Joint Hindu Family into existence; for its
continuance common ancestor is not a necessity. The death of common ancestor doesn‟t mean
that the joint family comes to an end. A hindu joint family is not a corporate.
It has no legal entity distinct and separate from that of the members who constitute. It‟s not a
juristic person either. HJF is represented by Karta. HJF is also diff. from composite family. A
single male or female can‟t make a HJF even if the assets are purely ancestral. There is no
presumption that joint family possesses joint property. There is no presumption that property
held by a member of joint family or a business conducted by a coparcener is joint family
business.
In Hindu Law existence of joint property is not a condition precedent to the existence of joint
family.
3
Property under Hindu law may be divided into two classes, viz.,

1. Joint-family property or coparcenary property;

2. Separate property or self-acquired property.

Joint-family property or coparcenary property signifies the property in which all the
coparceners have community of interest and unity of possession. Such property consists of-

1. Ancestral property;

2. Property jointly acquired by the members of the joint family;

3. Separate property of a member “thrown into the common stock”;

4. Property acquired by all or any of the coparcener with the aid of joint family funds.

2
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Joint-family-property-256431.asp#.VQg 1jY6UeAU
3
http://www.shareyouressays.com/117745/what-are-the-different-classes-of-property-under-hindu-law
In Bhagwant P. Sulakhe v. Digamber Gopal Sulakhe 4 , the Supreme Court observed that
the character of any joint family property does not change with the severence of the status of
the joint family and joint family property continues to retain its joint family character so long
as the joint family property is in existence and is not partitioned amongst the co-sharers. By a
unilateral act it is not open to any member of the joint family to convert any joint family
property into his personal property.

Ancestral Property

By the term “ancestral property” is meant that property which descends from father, father‟s
father and great grandfather. In this property a person‟s descendant‟s upto three generations,
i.e., sons, son‟s son, son‟s son‟s son acquire an interest by birth.

The manager of a joint family cannot start a new business so as to bind the share of the other
adult coparceners, unless the business is started or carried on with their express or implied
consent. The income of joint family business constitutes joint family property. Similarly any
property acquired in exchange of a joint family property would also be held to be joint family
property. In case ancestral property is absolutely lost to the family, and a member of the
family, by his own exclusive exertions recovers it without any aid from the joint funds, and
with the consent actual or implied, of the others, the recoverer has certain special claims on
the property. The recovery, if not made with the privity of the co-owners, must at least be
bona fide, and not in fraud or by anticipation of the intention of other co-owners.

In Dharam Singh and others v. Sadhu Singh5 and others, the question was whether the
property was ancestral or separate. In this case properties devolving on father of party due to
the death of issueless brothers and addition to it by the relinquishment of shares by sisters
was held not to be ancestral property vis-a-vis his sons.

Property jointly acquired by the members of the joint family

Where property has been acquired by the members of joint Hindu family by their joint labour
whether in business, profession or vocation, with the aid of joint family property, it becomes
joint family or coparcenary property. According to Bombay High Court a property acquired

4
Modern Hindu Law; Dr. Paras Diwan; Twentieth Edition
5
Modern Hindu Law; Dr. Paras Diwan; Twentieth Edition
by the joint labour of the members, even without the aid of joint family funds, is presumed to
be joint family property in absence of any indication of an intention to the contrary.

In Gumam Singh v. Pritam Singh & others. the court further held that if property is
acquired by the fund of joint labour even if it was purchased from income derived from land
which was taken on batai and cultivated jointly there would be presumption of jointness and
property would be treated as joint Hindu family coparcenary property.

Property Thrown Into the Common Stock

Where any coparcener voluntarily throws his self-acquired property into the joint fund with
the intention of abandoning all separate claims to it, it would be joint property, so as to be
divisible among all the members. Such an intention need not be express, it is sufficient if the
owner blends it as one general account without discriminating between the two, in such a way
that a clear intention to waive his separate rights may be established.

In K. Abdul Reddy v. Venkata Narayan the Supreme Court observed that once it is
presumed that the family is joint and it holds joint property it would be a legal presumption
that the property held by an individual member or by all the members is joint family property.
If any member claims his separate right over certain part of joint property the burden of proof
would be on him to prove that it was his separate property.

Property Acquired With The Aid of Joint Family Funds

Property acquired with the aid and assistance of joint family property is also joint. Thus,
accumulation of income, i.e., rent etc. of joint family property, property purchased out of
such income, the proceeds of sale or mortgage of such property and property purchased out of
such proceeds are also joint family property.

Where in a joint Hindu family some property is purchased in the name of one of its members,
it will be regarded as a joint family property not his own separate property. If he has acquired
any property without the help of joint family property it could be treated as his separate
property. Where any member of joint family blends his self acquired property into common
property of the family or joint family property, it all becomes joint property.
 SEPARATE PROPERTY OR SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY

Property which is not joint is called separate or self-acquired property. The word „separate‟
suggests that the family was formerly joint but has now become separate. When a member
separates from joint family, the property which he acquires will be treated as his separate
property vis-a-vis his relations with his brothers, but so far his sons are concerned it would be
regarded as joint family property. The term “self acquisition” signifies that the property has
devolved upon him in such a manner as nobody except himself has any interest in it.

Property acquired by a Hindu in any of the following ways is his self-acquired or separate
property even though he be a member of a joint Hindu family-

1. Property acquired by a Hindu by his own exertion would be his separate property as it
is not the result of any joint labour with the other members of the joint family,
provided it is obtained without detriment to joint family property. Where a person has
acquired any property by way of adverse possession after remaining in its possession
adversely for a period of twelve years it would be treated as his self-acquired property
not a joint property.

Where a member of joint family carries on a business of medical practitioner in

Ayurvedic medicines and thereby earnes heavy sum of money and gives loan on
mortgage, thus accumulating further income, all the earnings and the property thus
acquired by him would be his separate property.

Recently in Maklian Singh v. Kulwant Singh, Supreme Court observed that if a male
member of the Joint Hindu Family purchased the property by his own incomes like
salary income, such property is his self acquired property. Such property inherit his
heir by succession. It could not be said to be the property of Joint Hindu Family.

2. Property inherited by a Hindu from any person other than his father, grandfather or
great grandfather would be his separate property. Where a person earns money from
the practice of a hereditary profession like the hereditary priest, it will not be regarded
as his joint family property but on the other hand his separate property.In Madan Lal
Phul Chand Jain v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that a Hindu can own
separate property besides having a share in ancestral property.
3. Any property obtained by a Hindu as his share of partition of a joint Hindu family,
provided he has no male issue, shall be treated his separate property. Where a Hindu
makes some acquisitions after partition with the help of his share in joint family
property, that property shall be regarded as his separate property.

4. Any property devolving on a sole surviving coparcener provided there is no widow in

existence who has power to adopt or has a child in her womb, will be regarded as his
separate property.

5. Property obtained by a Hindu by a gift or will unless made by his father, father‟s
father or father‟s father‟s father for the benefit of the family and not exclusively for
himself, would be his separate property.

6. Property obtained by gift of ancestral property made by the father through affection,
will be his separate property.

7. Property obtained by a Hindu by grant from the Government shall be regarded as

separate property.

8. Joint family property lost to the joint family and subsequently recovered by a member
thereof without the assistance of joint funds from a stranger holding adversely to the
family property shall be regarded as his separate property.

9. Gains of Learning: Any income earned by a member of joint family substantially by

means of his education or specialisation, expertise or special intelligence would be
regarded as his separate property. Where a member of joint family acquires some
knowledge or specialisation after getting the education at the cost of joint family fund
and later on earns a considerable sum, whether that sum will be treated as his separate
property or joint family property, became a controversial issue.
 MAIN DIFFERENCS BETWEEN COPARCENARY PROPERTY AND SEPARATE PROPERTY

The main points of distinction between coparcenary property and separate property may be
laid down as follows:
1. Devolution:
On the death of a coparcener, his undivided interest in the joint family property devolves by
survivorship, and not by succession, (subject to the provisions of Sections 6 and 30 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956).
The separate property of a coparcener, on the other hand, passes, on his death intestate, to his
heirs by succession, and not by survivorship to the remaining coparceners.
2. Nature of interest:
All the coparceners have community of interest and unity of possession in the joint family or
coparcenary property. On the other hand, the separate or self-acquired property of a Hindu
belongs to him exclusively – even though he may be a member of a joint Hindu family.
As long as the family is undivided, a coparcener cannot predicate that he or she has, at any
given time, a given share (say, one-third or one-fourth) in the coparcenary property. His or
her share crystallizes only when a partition takes place, and till then, he or she has a
fluctuating interest, liable to be enlarged by deaths in the family, and capable of being
diminished by births in the family. As separate property belongs exclusively to its owner, the
question of predicating shares does not arise in the case of such property.
3. Acquisition of interest by birth:
The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the coparcener acquire an interest in
the coparcenary property by birth. But, no other coparcener (not even his own son) acquires
any interest by birth, in the separate property of a Hindu.
4. Alienation by will:
Prior to 1956, no coparcener could dispose of by will, his undivided interest in the
coparcenary property, whereas separate property could be freely disposed of by will. But
now, S. 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, enables a Hindu to dispose of such interest
under a will.
5. Alienation by gift:
Separate property can be gifted away by the owner, to any extent, and to any person. Thus, if
the owner is the father, he can make a gift of his separate property even to a stranger, without
the concurrence of his children. Likewise, he can gift it to one child to the exclusion of the
other children, and so on. No coparcener can, however, alienate his undivided interest in the
coparcenary property by way of gift, without the consent of the other coparceners. The only
exception to this rule is that a father may make a gift of a small portion of ancestral property,
within certain limits and under certain circumstances, to be discussed later. Even the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, has not made any provision for alienation of coparcener‟s undivided
interest by gift, as it has for alienation by will.
6. Alienation by sale or mortgage:
No coparcener can alienate his undivided interest in a coparcenary by sale or mortgage,
without the consent of the other coparceners. This general rule admits of certain exceptions.
Thus, the manager of a Hindu joint family can alienate, by sale or mortgage, a portion (or
even the whole) of the joint family property for a legal necessity or for the benefit of the
estate, even without the consent of the other coparceners. Likewise, if such manager is the
father, he enjoys an additional power of such alienation for the payment of his antecedent
debts which were not incurred for illegal or immoral purposes.
7. Partition:
A joint family or coparcenary property is liable to be partitioned, whereas there can be no
question of partitioning the separate property of a member of a joint Hindu family.
So, there is no point or any type of disturbance in alienating an separate property but
alienation in Joint family Property is not that easy and can be challenged in various ways.
The persons who can alienate the Joint family Property are the coparceners of that family and
further it includes Father, Karta and other Coparceners.

Coparcener’s Power of Alienation-

The Dharmashastras cautioned against the individual rights of coparceners to alienate JFP
and it was concluded that the coparceners can‟t alienate the JFP because it will have the
effect of introducing strangers to coparcenary, without the consent of it‟s members and thus,
defeating the rights of survivorship which they would have then possess.
A coparcener is entitled to alienate his individual share in the whole of the property or certain
specific item of the property.
In Bombay, Madras and M.P. H.C. it was held that coparcener cam alienate the individual
interest without the consent of other coparceners whereas in other state it wasn‟t allowed yet.
In state where alienation is allowed it can‟t be challenged however, in states where it is not
allowed, any coparcener can challenge it with a condition that at the time of alienation he
must be included in a coparcenary.
Challenge of coparcener born after alienation since coparcener have an interest by birth and
coparcenary extends to four;
 Where alienation by father in presence of his son, who ratify it an after born son can‟t
challenge it.
 Where alienation is done by father in presence of his son and the son don‟t challenge
it in limitation period then grandson can‟t challenge it.
 A post humous grandson can‟t challenge it.
 Grand-father alienate after the birth of grand son- grand son‟s can‟t challenge it.
So, the difference in power of alienating limits the power of the coparceners and thus all
coparceners have diff. power acc. To their positions.
In Bombay, Madras and M.P. the coparceners need not take the consent but in other states it‟s
mandatory to take the permission otherwise it would be challengeable at the part of other
coparceners.
 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

he retaining of coparcenary is patently unfair and discriminatory as it violates the provisions

of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Andhra Pardesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu
have taken a step in the right direction. But, the infirmities in these State acts must be
corrected to make them effective.

1. The adoption of the Kerala Model would prima facie appear to be fair to women as they
did not have any right by birth; but on further examination it became clear that if the joint
Hindu family is abolished as on date and there are only male coparceners, then only they
would hold as tenants in common and women would not get anything more than what they
are already entitled to by inheritance under section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. To
overcome this, The Law Commission of India has rightly suggested that it would be better to
first make daughters coparceners like sons so that they would be entitled to and get their
shares on partition or on the death of the male coparcener and hold thereafter as tenants in
common.
2. But to make them coparceners in the true spirit it would be necessary as the Law
Commission of India has suggested to abrogate the doctrine of pious obligation and the
deletion of S23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3. Also, we are of the opinion that a express provision be inserted in all the State Acts
conferring on women the status of Karta. If this is not done then it would again violate Article
14.
4. Further the distinction between married and unmarried daughters be done away with from
the State acts in light of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court decision on Savita Samvedi v Union of
India.

5. Finally Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 must be abolished, if not it might
create technical problems in dispensing justice and cause miscarriage of justice..
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

Books:
1. Hindu Law by R.K. Agarwal
2. Mayne‟s Treatise on Hindu Law and Usage
3. G.M. Divekar: Hindu Law (A critical commentary)
4. Modern Hindu Law by Dr. Paras Diwan

SECONDARY SOURCES:

Websites:

1. www.lawoctopus.com
2. www.indiankanoon.org
3. www.ecourts.gov.in
4. www.shareyouressays.com
5. www.lawyersclub.com