Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Are Inheritance Rights of Women in Agricultural Land A Mirage - Bindu Jindal - PDF
Are Inheritance Rights of Women in Agricultural Land A Mirage - Bindu Jindal - PDF
Are Inheritance Rights of Women in Agricultural Land A Mirage - Bindu Jindal - PDF
Bindu Jindal*
ABSTRACT
The participation of women in agriculture is evident from the different data and sources
available. Females outnumber the male participation in agricultural labour. Hence, agricultural
productivity is increasingly dependent on the ability of women to function effectively as farmers. Which
requires the effective de- jure as well as de-facto control over land. However, ownership of land is
concentrated mostly in male hands in our society.
Before 1956, devolution of both acquired and inherited property was governed by the personal
laws of the community. Although equal rights were granted to women in acquired property through the
Hindu Succession Act of 1956, rights in inherited agricultural land were specifically exempted from the
Act, and were made subject to tenancy and land reform laws of the states. Little effort was made until
2005 to do away with these discriminatory laws. Finally, after 50 years of the 1956 Hindu Succession Act
(HSA), the government addressed some persisting gender inequalities in the HSA by bringing in the
amended HSA in 2005. One of the most significant amendments in the 2005 Act is deleting the gender
discriminatory Section 4(2) of the 1956 HSA. Section 4(2) exempted from the purview of the HSA
significant interests in agricultural land, the inheritance of which was subject to the devolution rules
specified in state-level tenurial laws. The 2005 Act brings all agricultural land on par with other property
and makes Hindu women's inheritance rights in land legally equal to that of men's across states,
overriding any inconsistent state laws. Even though the amendment of legal framework, which deleted
gender discrimination on agricultural land, women often fore go this right in anticipation of maternal
home’s support. They also face impediments in materializing the legal provisions and getting their names
entered in the land record. Even ownership does not always turn into control. Decision making remains
in hands of the males having control on the household. They are suppressed with their claims due to the
tedious and harassing process of approaching the bureaucracy and the courts. Asset redistribution is
superior to income redistribution. Asset ownership and control rights are preferable to numerous policy
alternatives for women’s empowerment. These are likely to bring in changes in public opinion about
gender roles and social cultural norms of deep-seated social inequalities of women such as the household
division of labour, restraints over women speaking in public, constraints on their mobility, and a
pervasive gender-based violence within the home and out-side. In the present paper, the author wishes to
study the gap between legal status and ground realities of females right to inheritance in agricultural
land and present some arguments and suggestions on this subject1.
1. INTRODUCTION
The lo wer ing o f wo man as a class fro m t he hig h po sit io n she had o nce
enjo yed marked it s degradat io n in no less co nsp icuo us manner. T his
chang ed at t it ude is evid e nt fro m t he t o ne o f Manu samhita- t he Veda o f t he
Brahmani cal rev ival 2. The in iqu it o us barr ier which t he Hindu s had raised
bet ween man and wo man, sapped t he st rengt h and vit alit y o f nat io nal as
well as do mest ic life.
Hist o rically, wo men had t he u nfo rt unat e fat e o f bear ing t he bru nt o f
d iscr iminat io ns in all sp heres o f life. Access t o go o d t hing s o f life lik e
educat io n, emp lo yment , pro pert y and o ppo rt unit y t o part icipat e in so cia l
and po lit ical life, o n a fo o t ing eq ual t o t hat o f men, were denied t o t hem.
Even no w, d ismissal p ict ure co nt inu es in so me sp heres. But in
ho usekeep ing, t he child bear ing / car ing and in t he u pkeep o f family’s
sp ir it and et ho s, t heir respo nsib ilit ies are pract ically exclu sive. Ho wever
t heir bio lo g ical charact er ist ics, while essent ial fo r co nt inu it y fo r
co nt inu it y o f hu mank ind, o ft en are t he fact ors t hat face ma le aggressio n.
Develo p ment in repro duct ive t echno lo g y has rampant ly been abu sed fo r
fema le fo et icid e. 3 Examp les ar e no t rare in no rt hern I nd ia, where t he
As d ist inct fro m sex, which is a perso nal bio lo g ica l fact o r based o n
nat ure, t he image o f gender surp asses mer e d ist inct io n bet ween wo men
and men and represent s so cio - eco no mic, cu lt ural and p sycho lo g ica l
fact o rs t hat make o ne class st ro ng o ver t he ot her. 4 Gender st ands fo r
charact er ist ics o f men and wo men, which are so cially det er mined rat her
t han bio lo g ically id ent ified. It det ermines t he so cial ro le, access t o
o pport unit ies, ent it lement t o reso urces fo r t hese t wo cat ego ries o f per so ns
and bu ild s cu lt ur al imp licat io ns upo n t hem. I n pract ice it generat es b iases
in favo ur o f men and ag ainst wo men in r elat io n t o birt h, shar ing o f
benefit s, enjo ying o f hu man r ig ht s an d fo llo wing o f t rad it io ns. 5 Ir is
Mar iso n Yo u ng co ncept ualizes g ender ju st ice as an asp ect o f so cial
ju st ice, which essent ially means “eliminat io n of inst it ut io nalized
do minat io n and o ppressio n.” 6
4
B. K. Nagla, “Sex and Gender : Cognitive Analysis”, Abha Avasthi & A. K. Srivastava (Eds.),
Modernity, Feminism and Women Employment, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 2001, at pp. 134, 136-68.
5
Ibid, Ishwar Bhatt.
6
Iris Marison Young, Justice and Politics of Difference 15 (1990) .
fit t ed t o rule t han fema le. 7 The fact t hat fro m t he t wilig ht o f civ ilizat io n
wo men, children and slaves wer e su bjug at ed by men, had in fluenced legal
no r ms also . T he d iv id e bet ween pu blic and pr ivat e sp here and allo cat io n
o f t he fo r mer t o men and t he lat t er to wo men had rend ered wo men
inv is ib le t o t he law, as viewed by Hila ire Bar net t . 8
Art icle 1 5(3) allo ws St at e t o make special pro vis io ns fo r wo men and
children. T his calls fo r o perat io n o f su bst ant ive equa lit y mechan ism fo r
t heir well being. 11The ma in o bject ive o f t his pro visio n is eliminat io n o f
su bst ant ive inequalit y o f t he d isad vant aged gro up in t he so ciet y b y
po sit ive measur es. T he sp ecu lat ive examp le o f jud ic ial int erpret at io n o f
7
Aristotle, The Politics, Ta Sinclair, (T R.), Penguin Book, London, 1962 at p. 125.
8
Hilaire Barnett, Introducdtion to Feminist Jurisprudence, Cavendish Publishing, London, 1998 at p. 65 .
9
Bombay Labour Union v. International Franchises Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 942, C. B. Muthamma v. Union of
India, AIR 1979 SC 1868, Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, (1981) 4SCC 335.
10
Raghubans v. State, AIR 1972, P& H 117.
11
Ratna Kapoor and Brenda Cossman, “On Womem, Equalityn and the Constitution: Through the Looking
Glass of Feminism”, 1 NLSJ , 1993, at p, 1.
A Hindu wo man, whet her a maid en, a wife o r a wido w has never been
denied t he use o f her pro pert y. E ven in Manusmriti o ne can see t hat r ig ht
to ho ld pro pert y had been respect ed 14. Jur ist s like Yajna valkya, Katyayana
and Narada furt her pro mo t ed t he co ncep t o f wo men’s r ig ht t o pro pert y.
Wo men’s pro pert y r ig ht s impro ved and defined dur ing t heir t ime 15. The
Smriti kars creat ed a u niqu e t ype o f pro pert y t o wo men, t he strid hana.
S ince anc ient t imes st ridh ana was t reat ed as wo men’s separat e pro pert y 16.
Jimutavahana went t o t he ext ent o f st at ing t hat wo man has abso lut e
co nt ro l o ver her pro pert y even aft er marr iage 17. The o rnament s, t he wealt h
she receives at t he t ime o f marr iage fro m her fat her and relat ives
12
AIR 1997 SC 3011.
13
Ger a l d Ja m es La r son , R el i gi on and Pe rsonal l aw i n Se c ul ar Indi a, A c all to
J udgme nt , In di an a Un i ver si t y Pr ess, Bl oom i n gt on , 2001 , a t p. 272.
14
Kan a ka La th a Mukun d, “T ur m er i c Lan d, Wom e n ’s Pr oper t y Ri gh t s in T am i l Soci et y
Si n ce E ar l y Medi e va l T i m es” , XXVII/ 17, Economic and Political Weekly, 1992 WS-2
15
Ibid.
16
Al l a di Kuppuswa m i (ed. ) May ne ’s Hi ndu l a w and Usage , Bh a ra t La w Hous e, 12t h ed.
1986 a t p. 840.
17
D Bh IV, I, 18.
18
See supra.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Krishtappa v. Ananta Kalappa Jarathakhane AIR 2001 Kant 322.
22
Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures, Family Law II, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 2007, at p. 402, 03.
23
Sham Lal v. Amar Nath AIR 1970 SC 1643.
devo lved acco rd ing to t he ru les o f Hindu Law, which pro vided a
d ist inct io n bet ween inher it ance t o stridh an and no n stri dhan pro pert ies.
This furt her wid ened t he gap bet ween success io n t o t he pro pert y o f a
fema le and a male Hind u. Seco nd ly it effect ed t he bo t h t he separ at e and
pro pert y as well as t he u nd iv ided shar e o f a male Hindu in co parcenar y
pro pert y. Fir su ccess io n t o t he pro perty o f a male Hind u, ear lier t he
wido w su cceeded o nly o n failure o f his male issue. No w, she inher it ed
wit h him, t ak ing a share equal t o his. I f t here wer e mo re t han o ne wido ws,
all o f t hem t o get her, too k a share t oo k a share equal t o t hat o f a so n 24.
S imilar t o t he r ig ht o f a so n a wido w also had a r ig ht t o claim a p art it io n,
but t he similar it y ended t her e, as he t oo k an abso lut e int erest and she go t
a limit ed int erest and if she d ied wit ho ut t here being a part it io n, t he
do ct rine o f sur vivo rsh ip app lied and her int erest was t aken by t he
sur viv ing coparcen ers 25.
4.2 Reforms towards Gender Equality in Hindu Law
Limit ed o wnersh ip o f fema le was co nvert ed int o fu ll o wnersh ip u nder t he
Hindu Successio n Act 1956. The hist o r y o f Hind u Law refo r m st art s wit h
t he Hind u Law co mmit t ee (Rau Co mmit t ee) set up in 1941. It was
fo llo wed by seco nd Co mmit t ee in 1944. The co mmit t e e finally su bmit t ed
it s repo rt to t he Fed eral P ar liament in 19 47. The reco mmendat io ns o f t he
co mmit t ee were debat ed in t he pro vincial Par liament . There was st ro ng
o ppo sit io n against t he int ro duct io n o f mo no gamy, d ivo rce, abo lit io n o f
co parcener y and inher it ance t o daught ers fro m t he o rt ho do x Hind u
co mmu nit y. The Co ngress leg is lat o r fro m West Bengal argued t hat o nl y
wo men o f t he lavend er, lip st ick and vanit y bag var iet y were int erest ed in
t he Bill 26.
There wer e also fears amo ng t he o rt ho dox Hindu men t hat if wo men were
g iven pro pert y r ig ht s families wo u ld br eakup. In 1948 t here was an All
24
Bhiwra v. Renuka (1949) ILR Nag 400.
25
M.P. Obanna v. KB Anjaneyulu 2000 (1) HLR 52 (AP).
26
Bina Agarwal, Redefining Family Law in India, Rout l edg e Del h I, 2007 , a t p. 306 -354.
27
Pa r a s Di wa n , “Da ugh t er s Ri gh t t o Inh eri t an ce a n d Fr a gm en ta t i on of Hol di n gs ” SC
(J ) 1978, a t p. 15.
28
Ibid. Bina Agarwal.
29
Ibid.
30
Th e Hi n du Marr i a ge Act 1955, Th e Hi n du Succe ssi on Act 1956, T h e Hi n du Adopt i on
a n d Ma in t en an ce Act 1956 an d Th e Hi n du Guar di an an d wa r ds Act 1956.
31
Ibid.
32
Archana Parashar, Women and Family Reform in India. Sage Pu bl i ca t i on s, N e w D el h i , 1992, a t
p. 103.
33
Ma dh u Ki sh wa r, “Codi fi ed Hi n du La w, M yt h a n d Rea l i t y” , xxi x/ 33, Economic and
PoliticalWeekly, 2145, 1994.
34
Ibid.
35
See Se ct i on 14 of t h e Hi n du Succes si on Act 1956.
pro visio n has been g iven ret ro spect ive effect . Co nsequent ly t he limit ed
est at e beco mes abso lut e. Ano t her impo rtant chang e bro ug ht o ut is t o t he
exp lanat io n S ect io n 6 o f t he 1956 Act . Upo n t he deat h o f a co parcener
t he pro pert y devo lves upo n his mo t her, wido w and daug ht er alo ng wit h his
so n b y t est ament ar y o r int est at e successio n and no t by sur vivo rsh ip. T his
ru le co nfers o n t he wo men an equ al r ig ht alo ng wit h t he male me mber s o f
t he co parcenar y 36. It is impo rt ant t o not e t hat Sect io n 6 st ill ret ains t he
Mitaksha ra co parcener y exclu d ing wo men fro m sur vivo r ship as a resu lt
fat her and so ns ho ld t he jo int family pro pert y t o t he t ot al exclu sio n o f t he
mo t her and d aug ht er desp it e pro vid ing a u n ifo r m scheme o f int est at e
Successio n. The st ringent rest r ict io ns u nder t he Sh ast ric law o n female
inher it ance were finally t ak en away by t he Par liament t o make it co nfo r m
to t he Co nst it ut io nal mandat e o f equalit y. T he d isabilit y o f wo men in
inher it ing t he fat her ’s pro pert y was u ndo ne u nd er Sect io n 6 o f t he 195 6
Act 37. The leg is lat io n has defined wo men’s pro pert y in t he widest po ssib le
manner. T he pro pert y includ es bo t h mo vable and immo vab le pro pert y
acqu ired b y a female b y inher it ance, part it io n, in lieu o f ma int enance,
arrears o f maint enance, g ift fro m any p er so n, a r elat ive o r no t , befo re o r
aft er marr iag e o r by her o wn sk ill, exert io n, by purchase o r b y
prescr ipt io n o r in an y o t her manner what so ever and also an y such pro pert y
held by her as st ridh anam immed iat ely befo re t he co mmencement o f t he
Act . Similar ly sect io n 15 is t he fir st st atuto ry enact ment t hat deals wit h
successio n o f H indu fema le’s pro pert y when she d ies int est at e befo re t he
Act t he pro pert y o f wo men d ying int est at e was go ver ned by cust o mar y
Hindu law. S he had o nly limit ed int erest which wo u ld be t er min at ed o n
her deat h. It is heart ening t o no t e t hat t he Act pro vid es t wo d ifferent laws
36
Sr uth i Pan dey, “Pr op er t y Ri gh t s of In dian Wom en ” , a va i l a bl e at.
h tt p: / /m usl i m per son a l l a w. co. z a / inh er i tan ced oc s/ pr oper t y%20r i gh t s%20of%20i n di an %
20wom en . pdf
37
Am ri t o Da s, “N ot i on a l Pa rt i t i on, A cr i ti que. , Sect i on 6 of T h e Hi n du Succe ssi on Act
1956” , J A IR , 2004 a t p. 149 .
38
Sect i on 15 of HAS.
39
In dira Ja i sin g, , “Mapping Women’s Gains in Inheritance and Property Rights under the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, a report by lawyers collective women’s rights initiative, a t pp. 12 -13.
40
Ibi d at pp. 5.
a birt h r ig ht in t he separ at ely o wned b y her pat er nal grand- fat her, and i f
he d ies int est at e leaving behind his so n (t he fat her o f t he daug ht er) t hen
t he daug ht er shall have an int erest in t he said pro pert y as a co parcener
and wo u ld be ent it led fo r p art it io n alo ng wit h t he r ig ht to demand
part it io n fro m her fat her. Acco rd ing t o t his amend ment if t he daug ht er
d ies int est at e; her int erest in co parcenar y wo u ld d evo lve by su ccess io n in
acco rdance wit h sect io n 1 5 o f t he HS A and if t he d aug ht er is left alo ne b y
deceased male co parcener, she sha ll in he r it his ent ir e pro pert y o f which
she wo u ld beco me abso lut e o wner and aft er her deat h, if she d ies int est at e
shall d evo lve upo n her heir s as per sect io n 1 5. Furt her, t he daug ht er no w
has t he r ig ht to dispo se o f her int erest in co parcenar y b y mak ing a wil l
and if she is a lo ne heir she shall beco me abso lut e o wner o f t he pro pert y
and sha ll also have a r ig ht to alienat e it dur ing her life t ime.
This amend ment also creat ed a r ig ht t o have a share in t he jo int pro pert y
dur ing t he part it io n favo ur o f children o f t he dau g ht er and her pre-
deceased daug ht er, in case o f t heir deat h, t hat is t o say a so n o f a pre -
deceased daug ht er o f a pre-deceased daug ht er; d aug ht er o f a pre-d eceased
daug ht er o f a pre-deceased daug ht er ; d au ght er o f a pred eceased so n o f a
pre-deceased daug ht er ; daug ht er o f a pre-deceased daug ht er o f a pre-
deceased so n are also no w includ ed in Schedu le t o HSA as Class I heir s.
The sa id heir s, no t being co parceners, wo u ld no t have r ig ht t o demand
part it io n but t hey wo u ld be ent it led t o t heir share as pro vided in amend ed
sect io n 6 o f t he HS A. 41
Wit h t he delet io n o f Sect io n 24 o f t he HSA t he wido w o f a predeceased
so n o r wido w o f a predeceased so n o f a predeceased so n o r a bro t her’s
wido w shall have a r ig ht t o succeed t he est at e o f ma le Hind u d yin g
int est at e even if she has remarr ied o n t he dat e o f t he o pening o f
successio n. 42
41
Ibid at p. 13 and 14.
42
Ibid at p. 21.
43
Ibid at p. 22.
4(2) had exempt ed fro m t he o ver view o f HAS sig n ificant int erest s in
agr icu lt ural land, t he inher it ance o f which was su bject to t he devo lut io n
ru les specified in St at e level t enur ial la ws. I n St at es where t hese laws
were silent o n inher it ance HS A wo u ld app ly. But , in Delh i, Himacha l
Pradesh, P u njab, J&K and UP t he t enur ial laws sp ecify inher it ance ru les
t hat were hig hly g ender u nequal. Here, pr imar y prefer ence was g iven t o
male lineal d escend ant s in t he male line o f descent and t he wo men came
ver y lo w in t he o rder o f preference o f heirs. But t he amend ment o f 200 5
bro ug ht all agr icu lt ural land at par wit h ot her pro pert y and made Hind u
wo men's inher it ance r ig ht s in land leg ally equal t o men's acro ss t he st at es,
o verr id ing any inco nsist ent st at e laws. 44
These amend ment s ar e no t free fro m cr it ic ism. There are var io u s
argu ment s ag ainst eq ual pro pert y r ig ht s. T he r isk o f fr ag ment at io n is an
o ft -repeat ed argu ment . This co nt ent io n is mislead ing and canno t ju st ify
select ively d is inher it ing wo men. Fr ag ment at io n can o c cur even when so ns
inher it . I n pr act ice, man y rural families co nt inue t o cu lt ivat e jo int ly eve n
when par cels are o wned ind iv idu ally. Ano t her argu ment is t hat wo men
migrat e o n marr iag e. But o ne mig ht ask t hat if men r et ain t heir claims
desp it e jo b-relat ed migr at io n, why sho u ldn't wo men, o n marr iage-relat ed
migrat io n? T hey co u ld lease o ut t he land to t heir family o r so meo ne else,
o r cu lt ivat e it co o perat ively wit h o t her wo men. T his wo u ld g ive wo me n
so me eco no mic secur it y, ho wever sma ll. If a wo man’s marr iage break s
do wn, she can no w ret urn t o her ho me o f birt h by r ig ht , and no t o n t he
su fferance o f relat ives. T his will enhance her self-co nfidence and so cial
wo rt h and g ive her great er bargain ing po wer fo r her self and her childr en,
in bo t h parent al and mar it al families 45.
46
Ibid.
suhaga n (a marr ied wo man) in t heir hu sband 's lifet ime. T hey d iv id e me n
int o neat cat ego ries o f go o d husband s and bad husband s, wit ho ut realisin g
t he inher ent exp lo it at io n in t he ver y inst it ut io n o f p at r iarch y and pro pert y
cust o ms. These no r ms ser ve as barr iers to wo men's abilit y t o exercis e
d irect co nt ro l o ver t he land t hey may in her it in t heir nat al v illag e. Thu s
alo ng w it h in it iat ing leg al r ig ht s o ver land t o wo men o ne wil l a lso have t o
make t hem co nscio u s abo ut t he exist in g realit ies o f po wer inequ it ies
47
wit hin t he family. This will requ ir e a great deal o f po lit ical co urage.
Asset red ist r ibut io n is sup er io r to inco me red ist r ibut io n. It pro vides a
basis fo r o ver co ming d ist o rt io ns in t he fu nct io ning o f market s and fo r
rest ruct uring g ender relat io ns in t he fie lds o f pro pert y r ig ht s, access t o
t echno lo g y, healt hcare, and go ver nanc e. Asset o wnership and co nt ro l
r ig ht s are preferable t o nu mero us po lic y alt er nat ives fo r wo men’s
empo wer ment . These are likely t o br in g in chang es in p u blic o p in io n
abo ut gender ro les and so cial cu lt ural no r ms o f deep -seat ed so cial
inequalit ies o f wo men such as t he ho useh o ld d iv isio n o f labo ur, rest raint s
o ver wo men speak ing in pu blic, co nst raint s o n t heir mo bilit y, and a
pervas ive gender- based vio lence w it hin t he ho me and o ut -side. 48
Wh ile t here are a gro wing nu mber o f co nt empo rar y laws, which g iv e
inher it ance r ig ht s t o daught ers when t hey ar e reco g nized as ind iv idu als
amo ng t he co mmu nit ies, t he pro cess o f marr iage and t he t rad it io nall y
pat rilineal cu st o ms have rema ined lar gely u nchang ed 49. Thus, t here
remains a mis mat ch bet ween marr iage pract ices and inher it ance laws, wit h
t he st rengt h and biases o f t he marr iage pract ice o ft en o verr id in g
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Bina Agarwal, “Gender and Command over Property: A Critical Gap in Economic Analysis and Policy
in South Asia” World Development 22 (10): 1994, at pp. 1455-1478.
inher it ance laws. 50 Levels o f educat io n, o ft ent imes pro duct s o f rest r ict io ns
o n wo men’s int eract io n wit h inst it ut io ns which are pr imar ily co mpo sed o f
men, creat e a myst iqu e and illu sio n abo ut legal act io ns. 51 Wo men wo rk ing
o n land wit ho ut t it les have led t o t he creat io n o f a new fo r m o f zamin dari
( land lo rd ism) syst em. T ime is r ipe t o co nvert t he de - jure st at us o f gend er
equalit y in pro pert y r ig ht s, int o de- fact o st at us. Ho wever t here are so me
po sit ive cho rds being p la yed wit h t he heart ening change amo ng rura l
wo men o f st at es life Har yana, when t hey have qu iet ly st art ed claiming
t heir inher it ance and share in t he pro perty fo r wh ich t he go ver nment had
g iven t hem equ al r ig ht s 52. Fo r t he accessib ilit y o f t hese r ig ht s at a bett er
level here ar e so me sugg est io ns being put fo rt h-
50
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_property_rights as visited on 14 January, 2014.
51
Bina Agarwal, “Gender and Land Rights Revisited: Exploring New Prospects via the State, Family and
Market”, Journal of Agrarian Change 3(1), 2003, at pp. 184-224.
52
Prem Chowdhry, "Women Claim Rights in Khap Land", The Tribune, Chandigarh, 07 March, 2014, at p.
11.
E mpo wer ment t ho ugh co nt ro l o ver land ho ld ings can have imp act to wards
decrease o f incid ent s o f do mest ic vio lence 53.
Giving wo men r ig ht s o n ho ld ings can r esu lt in st rengt hening t heir
bargain ing po wer and decisio n mak ing in ho me and in labo ur market .
Giv ing o nly t he pro pert y r ig ht s t o t he wo men, in agr icu lt ur al land is no t
su ffic ient but mo re effo rt s sho u ld be made t o get ent ered t heir names in
t he land reco rds.
The har mo n io us int erpret at io n o f St at e agr icu lt ural law and successio n
law is sur e t o br ing int o lig ht t he real image o f eq ual pro pert y r ig ht s.
The p arent s sho u ld res ist fro m spect acu la r ly spend ing o n t he marr iage o f
t heir d aug ht er rat her t he y sho u ld mak e effo rt s t o give her “her ” shar e.
At last t o quot e Just ice Su jat a V. Mano har: “...It is no t easy t o erad icat e
deep seat ed cu lt ur al values or to alt er t radit io ns t hat perpet uat e
d iscr iminat io n. It is fash io nable t o denigrat e t he ro le o f law refo r m in
br ing ing abo ut so cial chang e. Obvio usly law, by it self, may no t be
eno ugh. Law is o nly an inst ru ment . It must be effect ively used. And t his
effect ive u se d epend s as much o n a supp o rt ive jud iciar y as o n t he so cia l
will t o change. An act ive so cial refo r m mo vement , if acco mpanied by
legal refo r m, pro per ly enfo rced, can t ransfo r m so ciet y. ”
53
Ibid.