UNDERTAKING

I hereby undertake that the work which is being presented in this thesis titled

“Change in the status of Hindu women through Property Rights in

India: A Socio Legal Study” is based on my original research work. It has

not been submitted either in part or full for the award of any other Diploma

or Degree in this university or any other institution. My indebtedness to

others has been duly acknowledged at relevant places.

ANJU
Research Scholar
Regn. No. 99-MKR-295

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Although it is very hard and difficult to express my gratitude to all who

helped me in various ways in completing this work, yet I wish to take the
opportunity to express my heartiest gratitude to all and name some of them
who deserve special mention here.

I take the opportunity to express my gratitude to my learned and esteemed

guide Dr. Preet Singh, Professor, Faculty of Law, Maharshi Dayanand
University, Rohtak, under whose esteemed guidance and expert advice the
present research work has been completed. I feel deeply indebted to him for
his tireless efforts in polishing and enriching this work. I express my special
thanks to him for constantly encouraging, motivating, inspiring and
correcting me throughout the course of this work. It is worth mentioning that
without his thoughtful, constructive and useful suggestions it would not have
been possible to give such a shape to the present research work.

I take the opportunity to express my gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) A.S. Dalal, Head
and Dean, Faculty of Law, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, for his
inspiration and encouragement in completing this work.

I also express my sincere thanks to other teachers of the faculty for their
encouragement and support in completing this work.

I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the Librarians of various libraries

visited by me. I also express my gratitude to all the biographers whose books
and readings have been consulted by me.

iii
I also want to express my gratitude to my parents for all their support and to
my daughter, Ridhi, who is my only source of inspiration and who did
without me, when she needed, when I was busy with the research work.

And, above all, I thank the almighty from the bottom of my heart for all the
mercy and grace he has blessed me with. I really feel that without his
indication this work would not have been, and any work cannot be, possible.

ANJU
Research Scholar
Reg. No. 99-MKR-295

iv
 PREFACE

Property rights have played a very important role in changing the status of
Hindu women. It has been through these rights that Hindu women today are
standing at par with men. These rights have been very helpful in making the
Hindu women masters of their own destiny. Gone are the days when they
were limited to the four walls of the house and they were considered weaker
as compared to men. They are on parallel lines with Hindu males and they
have risen up to a respectable position in the society. No aspect of day-to-
day life is left untouched by them and they are doing wonder of wonders in
every field ,be it science and technology, astronomy, medicine, automobiles
or even rocket science. They have excelled themselves in all spheres of life
and how they have been able to do all this is because of the rights they get.
Property rights have given them economic freedom and on the basis of this
freedom they have become independent in decision making and they have
come out of the fetters of dependency on men.

Hindu women had lost all their respect and dignity during the medieval
period but because of the property rights they have got a respectable place in
the society. They seem to be taking more and more participation in every
productive activity and have been rising higher now.

All this is the result of the property rights given to them. The legislators felt
the need of passing a law in 1937 and it was the Hindu Women’s Right to
Property Act. This Act gave some rights to Hindu women and it increased
the hopes of further legislations in an attempt to empowering them. This Act
was considered to be a big step towards giving property rights to Hindu
women and then a landmark Act was passed in 1956 which was the Hindu

v
Succession Act, 1956. This Act gave absolute powers to the Hindu women
and it was considered to be a milestone legislation attempting to provide
Hindu women with more rights related to property and thereby improving
their position and strengthening them. Although the Act was considered to
be a landmark yet it did not give coparcenary powers to Hindu women. The
Law Commission of India studied the Act in details and found the pros and
cons of the Act of 1956. The law commission submitted its 174 th report to
the government and suggested amendment in the Hindu Succession Act of
1956. The Act of 1956 was amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment)
Act, 2005 and this Act gave coparcenary rights to the Hindu women.

The present research work entitled, “Change in the Status of Hindu

Women through Property Rights in India: A Socio Legal Study” deals
with the changes brought about in the status or position of Hindu women by
the property rights provided to them. The intention of the legislature was to
achieve the equality of status and dignity to them as in the constitution of
India. The Hindu women after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005 are given equal powers with those of men related to property. For
systematic study, the present book is divided into nine chapters. The first
chapter, as usual, is introductory.

Chapter-I deals with introduction in general. Position of Hindu women has

been discussed beginning from vedic period upto present times. In addition
to this a brief introduction to Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937,
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005 has been given. International Law has also been discussed. Objectives
of Study, Scope of the Study, Difference in Research, Hypothesis, Research
Questions and Research Methodology has been given in this chapter.

vi
Chapter-II This chapter deals with Hindu Women’s Property Rights under
the Customary Laws, The different thoughts of different schools have been
discussed in this chapter. The various reasons for why a particular thought
applied to a particular region have been discussed. Characteristics of
coparcenary property, Mitakshara school and its branches and Dayabhaga
School, Concept of Stridhan Under Vedic Literature and Women’s Estate
have been discussed in this chapter.

Chapter-III This chapter deals with Hindu Women’s Property Rights Under
The Hindu Women’s Right To Property Act, 1937. Significance and scope
of main sections of the Act have been elaborately discussed. Nature of
widow’s acquisition of Interest , Introduction of New Heirs, Separate
Property, Unchastity and re-marriage of the widow, Status of the statutory
co-heirs, Power of Disposal and Power of Investment and Management etc.
have been discussed under this chapter.

Chapter-IV This chapter deals with the Hindu Women’s Property Rights
Under The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in detail. Devolution of Mitakshara
Coparcenary Property by Survivorship, Notional or Deemed Partition,
Separated Members, Succession to the Separate Property of Hindu Males,
Rules of Succession in the case of Separate Property of Hindu Females,
Absolute Property Rights of Female Hindus and who is an Absolute Owner
has been discussed in this chapter.

Chapter-V This chapter deals with the Hindu Women’s Property Rights after
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Devolution of Interest in
Coparcenary Property, Daughter as Coparcener, Nature of property held by
the Daughter, Partition Effected Before Amendment, Allotment of Shares,

vii
Powers of Karta and Objectives of the Act have been discussed in this
chapter.

Chapter -VI This Chapter deals with Property Rights and Status of Hindu
women. A brief account of changes in the status of Hindu Women from
social and Legal aspect has been discussed in this chapter. My opinion
regarding the present status of Hindu women has been discussed under the
head ground level reality about the status of Hindu women.

Chapter-VII This Chapter deals with the Hindu Women’s Property Rights
and Judicial Observations. Various cases of the Supreme Court of India and
different High Courts related to the property rights of Hindu Women have
been discussed in this chapter.

Chapter-VIII This chapter deals with Suggestions and Conclusions which

have been derived by the research work after having gone through several
Acts related to property rights of Hindu women.

viii
 LIST OF THE CASES

(A)

Air India v. Nargis Mirza, AIR 1981 SC 1829.

Anant Nilkanth vs. Rupnarayan, 1946 Nag. 9.

Anath Bandhu v. Chanchala Bala, AIR (I976) Cal. 303.

Annapurna v. Kalpana, AIR (1972) Gau 107.

Anusayabai v. Iagdish, 1977 H.P.L. 7.

Anusayabai v. Iugdish, I977 H.P.L.

Anusuya Mallayya vs. Mallayya Nagayya, RCR (Civil) 428; AIR 1994 Karnataka.

Appasami v. Sarangapani l‘978 SC 1051.

Ayi Ammal v. Subnramania Asari AIR 1966 Mad 369.

(B)

Babu vs. Arunapriya, RCR (Civil); AIR 2010 Kerala.

Baburao vs. Savitribai, 1952 Nag. 270.

Bai Vijaya v Thalcuribai Chelabhai AIR 1979 SC 993.

Baiya v. Gopikabai, 1978 S.C. 793.

Balhar Singh vs. Sarwan Singh, RCR (Civil) 1012; AIR 2015 SC 1955.

Balusaheb v. Iaimala, 1978 Bom. 44.

Bejoy Gopal vs. Gmndra Nath, (l94l) C. 793.

Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1944.

ix
Bhagwan Dattatraya Budukh v. Vishwanath P. Joshi, AIR (I979) Bom.

Bhagwandeen vs. Maya Baee, (1877) 11 MIA 487.

Bhagyamma v. Smt. Ningamma, AIR 2009 NOC 1272 (Kar.).

Bhajya v. Gopikabai and another 1978 AIR 793.

Bhondu vs. Ramdayal, AIR l966 M.P. 51 (F.B).

Bhuribai v. Champabai, AIR (1968) Raj. 139.

Bishesha Baksh vs. Jang Bahadur, I22 l.C. 614.

(C)

Chanan Singh v. Balwant Kaur 1984 P&H 203.

Chellammal v. Vallaimmal, 1978 Mad. 21.

Collector of Madura v. Mootoo Ramalinga stehupathy (1868, 12 Moors Indian Appeals,

397).

Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly Vencata, (1861) 8 MIA 529, 550.

Comm. of Agricultural Income Tax v. Chillikhan Parameswara Bhat, (1980) 125 ITR 28.

(D)

D. Chinnabbai Reddy v. D. Kumara Swami, AIR 2003 NOC 139 (AP).

Daddo v. Ragiinath, 1979 Born. 176.

Dagdu v. Namdeo, AIR 1954 Bom. 1069.

Daya Singh v. Dhan Kaur, 1974 SC 665.

Debi Dayal vs. Bhan Pertap, (31) C. 433.

x
Debrata Mondal v. State of West Bengal, 2008 Cal. 13.

Deverawwa v. Gangawa, AIR 2006 NOC 535 (Kant).

Dhanbati v. Pratapmull, (1934) 61 Cal. 1056; Iairam v. Nathu, (1907) 31 Bom. 54.

Duddin v. Duddin, 1983 S.C. 583.

(E)

Emana v. Gudiseva, 1976 A.P. 337.

Eramma v. Veerupanna, 1966 SC 1966.

(F)

Fateh Singh vs. Ragubir Sahai, I938 All. 904.

Fulsing Ramsingh v. Durga Bai AIR (1980).

(G)

G.V. Kishan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR I987 AP 239.

Gandhi Maganlal v. Bai Jadab (1900) 24 Bom. 192 (F.B.).

Gulabbai v. Kamlabai, AIR 2011 MP 156.

Gulkandi vs. Dhikkal and others, RCR (Civil) 742; AIR 2016 (P&H) 73.

Gulraj Singh and another vs. Mota Singh AIR 1965 SC 608.

Gulwanz Kaur v. Mohinder Singh, AIR 1987 SC 2251.

Gurbachan v. Khichar Singh, 1971 Punj. 240.

Gurdit Singh v. Darshan Singh, 1973 P. & H. 362.

Gurupad vs. Heerabai AIR 1978 SC 1239.

xi
 (H)

Hanuman vs. Tulsabai, (1955) M.L.J. (S.N.) 169.

Hare Krishna vs. Jujeshi, 1965 Orissa 73.

Harekrishna vs. Jujeshti, 1956 Orissa 73.

Harish Chand v. Triloki Singh, AIR (1957) S.C. 434.

Hoshiar Singh v. Kowla, AIR 1952 H.P. 42.

Hunydoss vs. Sreemutty Uppormah, (1856) 6 M.I.A. 433.

(J)

Jagaribai v. Ram Khilawan, AIR (1976) M.P. 106. A.

Jagdish v. Mohammad, AIR (1973) Pat. 130.

Janki Ammal v. Namyana Swami, (I915) 432, LA.-207.

(K)

K. Satyanarayan v. G. Sithayya 1987 SC 353.

K.S. Subramani v. E. S. R. Packirisami 1989 Mad. 69.

Karoogathachari v. Nagarathinathachari, 1965 S.C. 1752.

Kartar Singh vs. Jangir Singh and others, RCR (Civil) 472; AIR 2016 P&H.

Kashiram v. Bhira 1981 MP 236.

Kasserbai vs. Hansraj, (1906) 30 Bom. 130. 31.

Krishna Das v. Venkayya, 1978 S. C. 361.

Krishna v. Nishamani, 1987 Ori. 105.

xii
Krishna v. State of Haryana, 1994 SC 2536.

Kumar Vivek v. Binda Devi, AIR 2006 Pat. 65.

Kumara v. Kunjulakshmi, 1972 Ker. 66.

Kundan v. Secretary of State, (1926) 7 Lah. 543.

Kunja Sahu vs. Bhagaban, 1951 Orrissa 35.

Kunji v. Meenakshi, AIR (1970) Ker. 284.

(L)

Lala Duni Chand v. Anar Kali, (1946) 73 LA. 187.

Laxmibai Nagappa Matiwadar and others vs. Limbabai Nagappa Matiwadar (1984) 1
BomCR 275.

Layalakshmi v. Ganevesa, (1972) 2 M.L.J. 50.

Lokamani and Ors. V. Mahadevamma and Ors, RCR (Civil) 256; AIR 2015 Karnataka.

(M)

Mahadevappa v. Gauramma, 1973 Mys. 142.

Malappa v. Shivappa, 1962 Mys 140.

Mali Bewa v. Dadhidas, AIR (1960) Orissa 81.

Mangal Singh v. Smt. Ramo, AIR (1967) S.C. 1786.

Mangdl Singh v. Rathno, 1967 SC 1786.

Maniram Kolita v. Kerry Kolitany (1880) 7 I.A.1 15.

Manohar Lal vs. Bhuri Bai, 1972 S.C. 369.

xiii
Manumakka v. Dase, 1976 Kant 30.

Mathukaruppa v. Sellathamal (1961) Md. 298.

Meenakshamma v. Nanjodappa, 1993 Kant. 12.

Meyappa v. Kannappu, 1976 Mad 154.

Mohinder Singh vs. Laxmi Bai and others, RCR (Civil) 823; AIR 2016, P&H.

Mukhtar Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, AIR (1966) Punj. 31.

Munna Lal v. Raj Kumar, AIR 1962 SC 1493.

Munnusamy v. Rajamlal. 1977 Mad. 228.

Murmalal v. Rajkumar, 1962 S.C. 1493.

(N)

Namdeo v. State of Mah, 1981 Mah. 25.

Naraini v. Rama, 1976 SC 2198.

Narayani v. Govinda, 1975 Mad. 275.

Nilamadhabha Deo v. Janaka Kumari, AIR 2009 (NOC) 862 (Ori.).

(O)

O.M. Meyyappa v. Kannappa, AIR 1976 Madras 154.

(P)

Pandhari Vs. Ram Chandra and others, RCR (Civil) 738; AIR 2013 MP.

Panna Lal v. Seba Bai, AIR 1954 Nag 30.

Pannalal v. Mt. Naraini, AIR 1952 SC 172.

xiv
Peda Venkana v. Sreenivasa, AIR 1918 Mad WN 55.

Phulia vs. Narpat I.L.R. (1944) A. 116.

Piari v. Board of Revenue, AIR (1972) All. 492.

Poosarla v. Union of India. 1977 A. P. 237.

Pratapmull v. Dhanbati, 1973 P.C. 21.

Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar 1985 S. C. 628.

Prem Mahton vs. Bandhu, 1958 Pat. 20.

Prem Mahton vs. Bandu, 1958 Pat. 20.

Punjab Sugar Mills vs. Lakshman, 1937 A.L.J. 501.

Pushpalatha v. V. Padma, AIR 2010 Kant 124 (DB).

(R)

R Narsinhachari v. Andalammal, AIR (1979) Mad. 3 1.

R.S. Munna Lal v. Rajkumar, AIR (1962) S.C. 1493.

Radha v. Pandhari, 1941 Nag. 135.

Radharam v. Hanoomari Pd. AIR (I966) S.C. 216.

Radharani v. Hanooman Pd., AIR 1966 SC 216.

Radhey Krishan Singh v. Shiv Shanker Singh (1973) SCC 472: AIR 1973 SC 2405.

Raghubir Singh vs. Gulab Sing, AIR 1998 S.C. 2401.

Raghuwan v. Anki Prasad, 1981 M.P. 39.

Raj Kumari and others Vs. Krishna and others, RCR (Civil) 385; AIR 2014 SC.

xv
Rajendra Prasad Sahu Vs. Kamla Devi and others, RCR (Civil) 355; AIR 2011
Jharkhand.

Rajkumar v. Sardarni, AIR (1972) P&H. 438.

Ram Belas Singh v. Uttamraj Singh, AIR 2008 Pat. 81.

Ram Chandra v. Savitri I978 Bom. 212.

Ram Saran v. Bhagwan, AIR 1929 All 775.

Ram v. Director of Consolidation U.P., AIR (1975) All 151.

Ramesh Derma v. Lajesh Saxena, 1998 MP 46.

Ran Raja v. Hastimal; AIR (1972) Raj. 191.

Ranguboi v. Lhxmrm, 1966 Bom. 169.

Rani v. Ramanandan, 1970 (Notes) 23.

Raoji v. Anant, 20 Bom. L.R. 671 (P.C.).

Reetu Bhadha vs. Hira Kunwar and others, RCR (Civil) 3140; AIR 2012 Chhatisgarh.

Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh, RCR (Civil) 40; AIR 2013 SC.

(S)

S.R.Srinivasa v. Padmavathamma, 2010 (5) SCC 274.

Sadhu Singh v. Ctirudwant Sahib Narike, 2006 SC 3282.

Samar; Singh v. Dhan Kaur, 1971 P&H 323.

Sanlhanam v. Subramanya AIR 1977 S. C. 2024.

Satya v. Urmila, 1970 S.C. 1714; M.G.K. Pillai v. Kunjulakshmi, 1972 Ker. 66.

xvi
Satyanarain v. Rameshwar, 1982 Pat. 44.

Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Muthuvenkatarama Iyengar AIR 1998 SC 1692.

Sellammal v. Nellammal I977 S. C. 1265.

Shanta Devi v. State of Bihar, 1977 Pat. 268.

Shivdev Kaur v. R.S. Grewal, RCR (Civil); AIR 2013 SC.

Shreya Vidyarthi Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi, RCR (Civil) 668; AIR 2010 SC.

Sidheshwar v. Bhubneshwar, AIR 1953 SC 497.

Sooraj v. Rehti, 1995 SC 872.

State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh, AIR 191 SC 2301.

State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh.

Subhash Khandekar v. Prayagbai Biradar, AIR 2008 Bom 46 1 (2008) 1 MhLJ 908.

Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta, Delhi High Court, 2015.

Sukhram vs. Gauri Shanker, AIR 1968 S.C. 365.

Surinder Singh Vs. Santokh Singh and others, RCR (Civil) 575; AIR 2014 P&H.

Surjan Singh and others V. State of Haryana and others, RCR (Civil) 342; AIR 2013
P&H.

Surjit Kaur and others Vs. Balwinder Singh and others, RCR (Civil) 24; AIR 2014 P&H.

Sushilo v. Nornynnroo, 1975 Born. 257.

(T)

Tavidisetty Venkateswara Rao v. Tavidisetty Nageswara Rao 2003 (6) ALD 654.

xvii
Thakur Dyehee vs. Raj Baluk Ram, (1866) MIA 140.

Tirath Kaur v. Manmohan Singh AIR 1981 P&H 174.

Tulasamma v. Sasha AIR 1977 SC 1944.

Tulsamma v. Sesha 1977 SC 1944.

Tulsamma v. Shesha 1977 SC 1944.

(U)

Umayal vs. Lakshmi, (1945) 1 M.L.J. 108 (F.C.).

Uttarakhand Mahila Kalyan Parishad v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 1965.

(V

V. Dandapani Chettiar v. Balasubramaman Chettiar (Dead) by LRs., 2003 (1) Decision

To-day (SC) 656.

Vajya v. Thakorbhai AIR 1779 S. C. 993.

Vasudevan and others vs. Devakay and others, RCR (Civil) 249; AIR 2016 Kerala.

Ved Parkash Vs. Jai Lal and others, RCR (Civil) 386; AIR 2016 P&H.

Veddeboyina v. Veddeboyina, 1977 SC 1944.

Vinod Kumar v. State 1982 P & H 373.

Waman Govind v. Gopal Baburao, 1984 Born. 208 (F.B.).

Yusuf v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 321, E.M.C. Steel v. Union of India (1991).

xviii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.C. Appeal Cases

AIR All India Reports
Art. Article
& Ampersand (and)
Bom. Bombay High Court
C.J. Chief Justice
e.g. Example
Ed. Edition
etc et cetra
Govt. Government
HSA Hindu Succession Act
HUF Hindu Undivided Family
i.e. That is
Ibid. Ibidium (in the same place or work) in the reference immediately
proceeding
NGO Non-Government Organization
P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court
p.,pp Page, Pages
R.C.R. Rajasthan Court Report
S./Sec. Section
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.A. Supreme Court Appeal
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
S.C.J. Supreme Court Report
Supra Above
V., Vs. Versus
Viz. Videlicet (Namely)
Vol. Volume
w.e.f. With effect from

xix