Author: Mahi Jha, a student at Chanakya Law College
INTRODUCTION
This legal article delves into the transformative journey of daughters’ property rights in India, with a focus on the significant impact of Hindu Succession Act. From the historical disparities in the inheritance to the landmark amendment in 2005, the article examines the evolving legal landscape that has empowered daughters as coparceners. Through analysis of case laws, legislative changes, and societal implications, this article sheds light on the nuanced complexities made towards gender equality in matters of property succession. The narrative unfolds against the backdrop of legal developments, emphasizing the pivotal role played by Hindu Succession Act in fostering more equitable and just framework for daughters’ right to property in India
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Before the enactment of Hindu Succession Act of 1956, the Shastric and Customary laws varied from region to region, which governed Hindus. These were recognized as the laws for Hindus and every person followed these customs only. The inheritance and succession laws among Hindus were governed by only these traditional laws and customs. As nothing was codified the legal landscape varied across regions and communities.
After 1956, Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was launched which codified all these customs and made them a proper law. The Act aimed to bring about uniformity and clarity. Ancestral property was to be devolved by survivorship rule only, under which only male were the coparceners up to 3 generations, and if 1st generation male dies, the it shifts to their sons, and it goes on. Women were not recognised as coparceners.
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, governs the “inheritance” and “succession” of property among Hindus. It applies to Hindus, Buddhist, Jains and Sikhs. The Act outlines the rule for intestate succession (when a person dies without will), determining the heirs and their respective shares. The act provides a structure for the distribution of property, ensuring a systematic approach to inheritance.
When it comes to determining heirs, the Act categorizes them in two classes. Class I heirs, which includes sons, daughters and the widow. They have priority in succession. Class II heirs comprises more distant relatives like parents, siblings and others. If there are Class I heirs, they inherit the property in equal shares. In the absence of Class I, Class II heirs succeed to the property.
This Act divides property into two parts; “Ancestral Property” which is inherited by birth and acquired on generation bases like from father, grandfather or great-grandfather. Another is “Self-Acquired Property” which is a property purchased the individual by own or by his own money.
In this act, there is a concept on coparcenary, which was primarily associated with male members of a Hindu family. Even though females are a part of family, but they are not considered as coparcenary. Which means that only male descendants of the family had the right to hold ancestral property, and females had no right over ancestral property. Upon the death of a coparcener, his share passed on to the surviving coparceners, maintaining a joint family structure.
Daughters, under the 1956 Act prior to the 2005 amendments, did not have the same rights as sons in coparcenary property. Their rights were limited, and they were typically entitled to a share in the form of right to maintenance and marriage expenses.
Amendments in 2005 made the Act gender neutral, granting daughters equal rights in ancestral property.
2005 AMENDMENT ON HINDU SUCCESSION ACT
The amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, enacted on 9th September, 2005, brought substantial changes to the inheritance and property rights, introducing gender neutral provisions. The amendment dismantled the historical exclusivity that limited coparcenary rights to only male members. With the amendment, daughters were accorded equal status as coparceners.
Daughters, after the 2005 amendment, acquired the same coparcenary rights as sons, not only in the terms of shared ownership in ancestral property but also in self-acquired property. The amendment eliminated the concept of a ‘limited estate’ for females, granting them full ownership rights, thereby ensuring a more equitable distribution of family assets.
The amendment introduced two types of succession; “Testamentary Succession” which means making a will, which means that the only self-acquired property can be given to anyone by will, be it son, daughter, wife, or any random person by will. Another is “Intestate Succession” under which if a owner of property dies without making any will to give ancestral property, then the first right over it will go to widow, then to son, and then to daughter, and all three would have equal right over property.
The amendment not only expanded the membership of the coparcenary structure to daughters, but also aimed to address gender-based discrimination in matters of inheritance. The amendment was marked by a progressive step towards fostering fairness and equality within the family dynamics and property distribution.
PROBLEM WITH THE AMENDMENT
The problem for the Hindu Succession Act Amendment, 2005, centred around the question that on the day of its enactment which is 9th September 2005, whether father should be alive on this day or not. Which means that if a father dies in 2003, and the law came into force in 2005, then whether her daughter can claim her right of succession or not. This problem put up a question over the amendment. The solution to this problem was achieved through following three cases.
PRAKASH VS. PHULWATI (2016)
The case was benched by Justice Anil Dave and Justice A.K. Goel. Supreme Court held that the amendment made in 2005, in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, will not be applied to prior cases and only be applied to those cases in which both coparcener and daughter should be alive on the date of enactment, i.e. 9th September 2005. Thus, both should be living, i.e. living coparcener’s living daughter only should have the right to claim the property.
DANAMMA VS. AMAR (2018)
After 2 years of the judgement of Prakash vs. Phulwati case, there came another case of Danamma vs. Amar in 2018. This case was benched by Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan. This case also dealt with the question on applicability of Hindu Succession Act Amendment 2005, about which category of daughter would be regarded under right to coparcenary. The judgement held that even if father died before the date of enactment (9/9/2005) of amendment, daughter has the right to be coparcener. Which means even dead father’s daughter would be entitled coparcener, and overruled the judgement of Prakash vs. Phulwati case.
VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA (2020)
The judgements of both the cases, i.e. Prakash vs. Phulwati case and Danamma vs. Amar case, are contradictory and they repel each other. It was a great confusion that which among the two should be considered and followed, i.e. whether both father and daughter should be alive or father may or not be alive, in order to make daughter coparcener. The case was benched by Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice M. R. Shah.
In the judgement Supreme Court held that women’s right to property is her right granted by birth and it has nothing to deal with father being alive or not. Hence Supreme Court declared that the daughters have the equal share in property like that of sons. Daughters and sons both are equally entitled to coparcenary properties.
LATER SCENARIO
Daughter’s right to property has been filled with too much of confusions and long going debate. In the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020), Supreme Court passed the judgement about daughter’s right to her ancestral property. But, even after this good judgement, there were many confusions regarding daughter’s right to property. Then came Arunachala Gounder case which clarified and removed these confusions.
ARUNACHALA GOUNDER VS. PONNUSWAMY (2022)
In this case, the issue of succession occurred in 1967, when Maratha Gounder’s only daughter Kuliapi Gounder died. Her death was actually intestate, means she had no will or property for succession. So, now the question was that if a female Hindu dies intestate, then to whom will the property devolve.
First issue that was arise from this case was that can a single daughter inherit her father’s self-acquired property who died intestate, i.e. without declaring will. This is a very precise issue, as in Vinita Sharma case, only coparcenary property was discussed which was ancestral property. There was nothing related to self-acquired property as such. Second issue is that, upon whom will the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolve to, which was also a big question.
In Arunachala Gounder’s case, Kuliapi Gounder inherited the property from her father, who is dead intestate. Now, to whom will this property devolve, the answer is her father’s heirs. In fact, the motive behind this judgement was to address that after a intestate female death, the property would go back to the sources.
Now, the first issue is about intestate father male death. Justice Abdul Nazir and Krishn Murari said that daughters have the right to inherit self-acquired and coparcenary properties after father’s intestate death. Moreover, first preference will be given to daughter and not to brother’s son. As, in this case, the issue was that who will inherit Kuliapi Gounder’s property. Brother’s son or someone else. In Vinita Sharma’s case, court already addressed that according to Section 6, daughters will be recognised as coparceners, by 2005 amendment. So, this is a retrospective effect, means even if cases before 1956 Act, daughters have the right to inherit father’s self-acquired and coparcenary property.
So, this solved the first issue. Now dealing with the second issue, which was whom will the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolve to. In this, if a Hindu female dies intestate, then property inherited from father or mother will devolve to her father’s heirs. But at the same time, the property inherited from husband or father-in-law will devolve to husband’s heirs. So, this section 14 converted limited estate of females to absolute estate or absolute property and stated that whenever a female dies intestate without will, Section 15 will be referred in such cases.
Hence, court made its judgement that property will be devolved to heirs of Kuliapi Gounder’s father. So, the property was devolved among five children of Maratha Gounder’s brother, Ramsay Gounder.
Now, after discussing these two issues, the judgement was passed against a verdict of Madras Highcourt.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the legal trajectory of daughters’ property rights in India, as shaped by the Hindu Succession Act and subsequent amendments, represents a commendable evolution towards gender equality. The Act, enacted in 1956, laid the foundation for a uniform legal framework, and the transformative amendments in 2005 marked a pivotal moment in rectifying historical gender imbalances. The recognition of daughters as coparceners and the elimination of the concept of ‘limited estate’ symbolize a commitment to foster fairness within familial structure.
The journey from traditional customs to a more inclusive legal landscape reflects the evolving values of an equitable society. It is evident that the Hindu Succession Act has played a crucial role in steering India towards a more just and gender-neutral approach to property rights.
Ongoing challenges underscores the need for continued scrutiny and reform to ensure the effective realization of daughter’s equal rights within the realm of inheritance in India.
