Sunni law of inheritance Rule:

Application: The instant problem is based on the Sunni law of inheritance in which there are three of heirs.
1.Shares: sharers are those who are entitled to a prescribed share of inheritance
2. Residuaries: Residuaries are those who take no prescribed share, hut succeed to the residue after the claims
of the shares are satisfied.
3. Distant kindred: Distant Kindred are those whose relations by blood, who are neither sharers nor
residuaries.
4. According to Sunni law, the expectant right of an heir-apparent cannot pass by succession to his heir nor can
it pass by bequest to a legatee under his, will nor can it be the subject of transfer of release.
5. There are 12 shares who inherit simultaneously. Wife inherits 1/4th of the property because there are no
children to the deceased. Father, being residuary inherits 1/6th of the share because there are no children or
child of his son. Mother inherits 1/3rd of the share because there is no child or child son. Full brother is not
the sharer and entitled as residuary. Consanguine sister’s son and daughter are not entitled to inherit the
share because there are not sharers.
Intestate succession among Indian Christians
Rule: Sec. 32, 35 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Devolution of such property.
Application: The instant problem is based on the ‘intestate succession among Indian Christians’.
1. Sec.32 the property of an intestate devolves upon the wife or husband or upon those who are of the
kindred of the deceased. 2.Sec.35 A husband surviving his wife has the same rights in respect of her property,
if she dies intestate as a widow has in respect of her husband’s property, if he dies intestate i.e., one- thirds
with lineal descendants and one-half without lineal descendant.
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,2005
Rule: The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, amended Sec. 4, 6, 24, and 30 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956. The amendment essentially furthers equal rights between males and females in the legal system.
Application: The instant problem is based on the intestate succession of a Hindu male. Over the period of
years the circumstances changed, and with the need of the hour Hindu Succession act 1956 which was again
amended in 2005, amended Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 allows the daughter of the deceased
equal rights with sons.
1.Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai, AIR 1996 SC 1826, the court held that the prhobition under Sec 23 over
female heirs to claim partition of dwelling house is not applicable in case only one male heir when the house
was let out to a stranger and the male heir is not in possession.
Pre-partition debt of his father
Rule: Sec.6 (4) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Application: The instant problem is based on
the liability of the son for the pre-partition debt of his father.
1. A son is under a pious obligation to discharge his father’s debts out of his ancestral property even if he had
not been benefited by the debts, provided the debts are not avyavaharika.
2. The debt is a pre-partition debt, the share of the sons would be liable even after partition, if the debts of the
father are not immoral or illegal and the partition arrangement does not make any provision for the discharge
of such debts.
3. Venkatesh Dhonddev Deshpande v. Sou. Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni, (1979) 1 SCC 98 (114), it has been
observed that whether father is the karta of a Joint Hindu family and the debts are contracted by the father in
his capacity as manager and head of the family for family purposes the debts to the extent of their interest in
the coparcenary property.
 Undivided interest in the joint family property/succession of property of a Hindu male
Rule: Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. General rules of succession in the case of male. Sec 9 of
the Act: Order of
Succession. Sec 10 of the Act: Distribution among heirs in class I Application: The instant problem is
based on the ‘succession of property under the Hindu male. Succession of a Hindu male dying
intestate under the Hindu Succession Act. Sec 8 to 13 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 lay down the
general rules as to the order of succession when a Hindu male dies intestate.
1.the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve
i) Firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I
ii) Secondly, if there is no heir of Class I then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class II of
the Schedule.
iii) Thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased.
iv) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.
Spousal property after divorce
Rule: Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Application: The instant problem is based on the ‘spousal property after divorce’. All movable and
immovable assets acquired by a married couple or a couple living together be classified as joint
property which would be divided equitably in the event of separation or desertion.
1. Smt. Sunita Shankar Salvi v. Shankar Laxman Salvi, AIR 2003 Bom. 431, The Court declared that the
appellant has 50% right, title and interest in the said flat along with respondent.
Succession to the property of female Hindu die intestate
Rule: Sec. 14, 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Application: The problem is based on the
succession the property of a female Hindu die intestate. Sec 14 of the act conferred on her, the
absolute rights.
1. Santosh v. Saraswathi, AIR (2008) SC 500, a question has been raised regarding the possession of
property of female Hindu and Court held the view that where property was given to the woman by
way of maintenance over which she had a right, her possession was accepted, it became her absolute
property.
Surviving Widow
Rule: By virtue of the provision of the Act of 1937 a Hindu widow undoubtedly possess a coparcenary
interest as contemplated by Sec.7 (1) of the Act and she is also a member of the Hindu
coparcenary as envisaged Sec. 7(2) of the act.
Application: the instant problem is based on the Surviving Widow’s claim on the interest of the
deceased.
1. The Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 was enacted to enlarge the rights of a daughter, both
married and unmarried and to bring her at par with a male member of a joint family governed by the
Mitakshara Law.
2. Controller of Estate Duty Madras v. Alladi Kuppuswamy, (1977) 3 SCC 385, it has been held that a
widow does not exercise her right of partition, there is no severance of the Hindu coparcenary
property or lapse to the other coparceners.
Illegitimate son/claim inheritance in ancestral and self – acquired properties
Rule: Sec. 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended does
not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of
their parents.
Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall
devolve firstly, upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class I of the schedule. Application: The
Claim inheritance in ancestral and self-acquired properties.
Surrender of limited estate Rule: Sec 15(2) the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Application: The doctrine of surrender of limited estate.
1. Naturally the women’s limited estate comes to an end on her death. In such case the next heir of
the last male holder inherits the property. This is known as the doctrine of surrender of limited estate.
2. On surrender of limited estate the woman effaces herself. It is essential that always the surrender
must be in favour of the next reversioner only and it must be bonafide.
3.Natvarlal Punjabhai and Another v. Dadubhai Manubhai and Others, AIR 1954 SC 61, as surrender by
a Hindu widow does not convey any title to the reversioners, but is only a voluntary act of self-
effacement by the widow she can make a valid surrender under Hindu law even after another person
had acquired title by adverse possession against her.
Partition of dwelling house
Rule: Sec. 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Special provision respecting dwelling houses.
Amendment to Sec 23 by the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Application: The instant problem is based on the partition of dwelling house. The law governing
property rights of women in India underwent a significant change in 2005 vide the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005.
1. Prior to the amendment women as daughter, wives or widows had no claim in the ancestral
property of their family. Coparcenary property was earlier confined to the male members of the
family only.
2.Sec 23 of the HAS Act, 1956 disentitles a female heir to ask for partition respect of a dwelling house
wholly occupied by a joint family until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein.
General rules of Succession in case of male Hindu (Mithakshara)
Rule: Sec 8, 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The General Rules of succession in case of
male Hindu.
Application: The instant problem is based on the General rules of succession in case of male Hindu.
Sec 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provide the general rules of succession in the case of males.
1. Firstly upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule.
2. Sec. 9 provides that the persons in Class I shall take simultaneously and the exclusion of all other
heirs those in the first entry in Class II shall be those in the second entry.
3. Sec 10 provides that the property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in Class I. Father
comes under Class II heir. 4.Rohir Chauhan v. Surinder Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 419, it has been observed
that the insofar as it applies to joint family property governed by the Mitakshara school prior of ther
amendment of 2005 could be that when a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, having at the time of his death in interest in MItakshara coparcenary property
his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving member of the
coparcenary.
Sunni law inheritance
Rule: As per the rules governing the Sunni law of inheritance.
1. Mother: The mother of the deceased always inherits as a Class I heir and takes 1/3rd of the
heritable if the deceased had not left behind a child or an eligible lower descendant; otherwise she
takes 1/6th of it.
2. Father: If the deceased had left behind a child or eligible lower descendant the father inherits as a
Class I heir and takes 1/6th.3 3. Spouse: If the deceased was a make his wife always inherits as a Class
I heir and takes 1/4th of his heritable estate if he has not left behind a child or an eligible lower
descendant otherwise she takes 1/8th of it.
4. Children: If the deceased has left behind both sons and daughters all of them inherit as Class II
heirs; the share of each son being double to the share of each daughter.
Application: The instant problem is based on the inheritance under Sunni Law. The succession based
on the principle of agnacy i.e tasib. According to the Sunni law the expectant right of an heir apparent
cannot pass by succession to his heir nor can is pass by bequest to a legatee under his Will nor can it
be the subject of transfer of release.
Disqualification of murderer
Rule: Sec 25 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. A per son who has murdered a person through whom
he wants to inherit the property stands disqualified on that account.
Application: The instant problem is based on the disqualification of murderer. Section 24 to 28 deals
with the disqualification to inherit the property under Hindu law. Sec 25 provides that a person who
commit murder of abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property
of the person murdered.
1.Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal and Another, 2005 (6) SCC 622, is has been held that if a male survivor
is disqualified to inherit the property of the person whom he murdered, then anyone who succeeds
though the murderer cannot lay a claim in the property.
1. Revansiddsppa v. Mallikarjun, AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 155, it has been opined that the constitutional
values enshrined in the preamble of the constitution of India which focuses on the concept of equality
of status and opportunity and also on individual dignity.
Mitakshara Rule: Hindu undivided Mitakshara property
Application: The instant problem is based on the insolvency of coparcener of undivided Mitakashara
family.
1.Nunna v. Chidaraboyina, (1903)26 Mad 214, on the insolvency of any other coparcener his separate
property and his interest in the joint family property vest in the official assignee or receiver and are
available for the benefit his personal creditors.
2. P.R.N.S.M.Chockalingam Chettair v. Official Assignee of Madras, (1943) Mad 603, it had been held
that the creditors of the insolvents father are not entitled to priority over the insolvent.
Mortgage
Rule: Whether a mortgage decree had been obtained the sons must prove that the debt was immoral
and in the absence of such, evidence they are bound by the mortgage.
Application: The instant problem is based on the liability of son for the mortgage debts incurred by
father.
1.Kishan Chand and Another v. Rakesh Kumar and others AIR 1957 P H 39, it has been held that the
mortgages were for consideration and necessity and therefore binding upon the sons, it took the view
that the debt had been incurred for a joint family business.
Power of alienation of Karta
Rule: Every coparcener had a right to challenge improper alienation within the period of limitation. It
is a settled law that an improper alienation can be challenged by all or anyone of the
coparcerners existing at the time of alienation.
Application: The instant problem is based on the power of alienation of Karta. Generally neither Karta
nor any other coparceners are allowed to alienate the joint family property individually. They alienate
their separate properties.
1. Kartha of a joint family has a power to transfer the joint family property for legal necessity like
education, health, marriage, clearing the debt, maintenance of the family and for the benefit of the
estate.
2.State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram, AIR 1969 SC 1300, it has been held that every coparcener is
bound by the transfers made by Kartha for legal necessity but he can object and challenge the
alienation made without his consent or made without legal necessity.
3.Sunil Kumar and Another v. Ram Parkash and Others, AIR 1988 SC 576, it has been held that the
coparcener has a right to challenge the alienation.
Property of a Hindu minor is sold by the father/ power of natural guardian of a Hindu minor.
Rule: Sec 8(4) the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 provides that no court shall grant
permission to natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in Subsection (2) except in case of
necessity or for an evident advantage to minor.
Application: The instant problem is based on the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu Minor. Sec 8
of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 provides that the powers of natural guardian of a
Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which
necessary or reasonable and proper of the benefit of the minor’s estate etc.
1. Sec. 8(3) provides that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention
of Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming
under him.
2.Sec 8(4) provides that no court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts
mentioned in Subsection (2) except in case of necessity of for an evident advantage to the minor.
 General rules of succession in the case of males
Rule: Sec 8, 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Application: The instant problem is based on
the general rules of succession in the case of male. Sec 8 provides that the property of a male Hindu
dying intestate shall devolve as below
1. Upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class I of the schedule.
2. If there is no heir of Class I then upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class II of the
Schedule.
3. If there is no heir.
4. sec. 10 provides that the property of an intestate hall be divided among the heirs in Class I as per
the following rules:
Rule1: the intestate’s widow or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together, shall take
one share.
Rule2: the surviving sons and daughter and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share.
Rule3: the heir in branch of each predeceased son or each predeceased daughter of intestate shall
take between them on share.
Rule4: the distribution of the share referred to in the Rule 3.