INTRODUCTION
Women’s succession rights in India have evolved through a dynamic process that has been influenced by social, legal, and historical developments. In the past, India adhered to patriarchal standards that gave preference to male heirs when it came to inheritance, which led to discriminatory actions against women. One of the major turning points in the development of women’s property rights in India was the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. The act removed the notion of limited estate, which prohibited women from inheriting property, and gave them the right to inherit ancestral property. However, women had to endure a lot of hardships and discrimination prior to the passing of the Hindu Succession Act. “However, the act had several limitations, including the exclusion of daughters from the coparcenary property and the absence of provisions for women’s right to dispose of property. The act was amended in 2005 to address these limitations and provide equal rights to daughters in coparcenary property. This amendment was a significant step towards gender equality and women’s empowerment in India”[1].
SUCCESSION RIGHTS OF WOMEN DURING ANCIENT TIMES
The majority of societies in ancient India were patrilineal, with property and ancestry passing through male heirs. Women’s status within the family structure was often limited to that of dependents or caregivers, with little or no inheritance rights.
Pre-colonial India’s Mitakshara School of Thought was dominant in North, West, and South India, with variations in Bengal. Dayabhaga, a different school in Bengal, prescribed liberal views on widows’ rights over property. Dayabhaga allowed widows to inherit their husband’s share of property if there was no male heir, while Mitakshara denied this. The concept of Stridhana, a form of endowment, also existedbut was exclusive to married women; single women have no rights whatsoever. However, Dayabhaga’s rights ceased after the widow’s death, and the property was passed on to the nearest male heir.
Pre-independence Era: The Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, 1929[2], and the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937[3] were significant legislation in pre-independence India. The former introduced inheritance rights for three female heirs and granted widows the same interest as their deceased husband in the Mitakshara coparcenary. However, these legislations failed to protect women against discrimination.
Post-independence Era: One important piece of legislation that attempted to codify and combine the inheritance laws that applied to all the Hindus that also included the Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs in India was the Hindu Succession Act of 1956[4]. It was an important step toward bringing Hindu inheritance laws, which were previously controlled by various customs and traditions, into harmony.
MAJOR FEATURES AND PROVISIONS OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956
Application: All Hindus, including Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, are covered by the Act. It aims to regulate the allocation of assets in situations of intestate succession (death without a will).
Gender Equality: The Act sought to amend Hindu laws that were in place at the time, which frequently discriminated against women when it came to inheritance. Although the rights of daughters to inherit their parent’s property were not initially equal to those of sons, it brought about significant changes in this regard.
Heirs were divided into two classes under the Act: “Class I heirs” and “Class II heirs.” Sons, daughters, widows, mothers, and other relatives are considered Class I heirs; in the event that no Class I heirs are present, more distant relatives are considered Class II heirs.
Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools: The Act aimed to modernize the differing rules concerning succession and inheritance under the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools of Hindu law. It sought to create uniformity by establishing guidelines that applied to all of India.
Succession to Property: Under the concepts of survivorship and lineal descendants, the Act outlines the guidelines for allocating property amongst legal heirs. In the event of intestacy, it specifies the heirs’ shares and rights.
Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956,[5]women are granted absolute property rights. This means that they can own any immovable or movable property that they have acquired through marriage, inheritance, division, gifts, or other means. Property obtained through Saudayika, Non-Saudayika, or Stridhan is included in this. Women are now free to sell or transfer property as they see fit, but coparcenary rights over inherited property are not granted by the Act. This guarantees that women, whether their property is mobile or immovable, have full ownership over it.
In the case of Punithavalli Ammal v Ramalingam & Anr,[6] the Supreme Court ruled that women’s rights under Section 14(1) are unalienable and cannot be restricted in any way by court interpretation or assumption. Furthermore, it held that the date of possession of the property is meaningless because women who owned it before the law’s passage would now have full rights that were previously restricted.
In the case of Pratap Singh v Union of India,[7]Hindu men began claiming that their right to equality guaranteed under Article 14[8] of the Indian Constitution was being violated by the Hindu Succession Act, but in this case, the Supreme Court held that the Act was not a law. The court ruled that it was fully compliant. This is in violation of the Constitution of India and there is no material violation of Article 14 or Article 15(1)[9] by coming into force.
Agasti Karuna v Cherukuri Krishnaiah,[10]In this case, it was held that a widow had absolute rights to her deceased husband’s property and that any transfer or alienation made after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act could not be challenged.
STATE AMENDMENTS
Andhra Pradesh was the first state to make a significant change in succession laws by granting unmarried daughters the status of a coparcener in 1985. As a result, Andhra Pradesh was two decades ahead of the other states in enacting this law. Other states, including Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, were inspired by this amendment and granted unmarried daughters the status of a coparcener. These states served as an inspiration, and BP Jeevan Reddy made a similar suggestion for changes in centrally enacted law in his Law Commission Report.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005,[11] was a significant step forward in addressing gender inequality in Hindu women’s inheritance rights in India. The amendment significantly altered the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which governs the rules of succession and inheritance among Hindus.
Women’s Rights: Prior to the 2005 amendment, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,[12] discriminated against women in inheritance matters. In its original form, the act prohibited daughters from being coparceners, or individuals who inherit an interest in ancestral property through birth. Sons had preferential rights, and daughters had only a limited share of their father’s property, especially if the father died intestate (without leaving a will).
The key changes brought by the amendment are:
Equal Coparcenary Rights: The amendment granted daughters the same status, rights, and liabilities as sons as coparceners. This means that daughters, like sons, now have the right to inherit ancestral property by birth.
Discrimination Mitigation: The amendment sought to eliminate the gender-based discrimination found in the original Hindu Succession Act. Daughters are now treated as equal members of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), with the same rights as sons.
Property Partition: The amendment allows daughters to seek and claim their share of family property, whether ancestral or self-acquired. This provision ensures that daughters are not excluded from the distribution of family assets.
Retrospective Effect: Because the amendment is retroactive, it applies to all daughters, living or deceased, as of the date of the amendment (September 9, 2005). This provision ensures that daughters born before the amendment’s implementation have the right to inherit.
In the case of Prakash & Ors. v Phulavati & Ors[13] , the SC held that a daughter can obtain coparcenary rights in her father’s inherited property only if her father was alive at the time the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act was enacted; otherwise, she could only obtain rights in her father’s self-acquired property.
But in the case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma & Ors[14], the SC held that coparcenary rights are conferred by birth, overruling Phulavati and partially overruling Danamma. The 2005 Amendment Act, which aimed to eliminate gender discrimination in coparcenary rules, would take effect retroactively, allowing daughters to share coparcenary property even if the father died before 2005.
CONCLUSION
Women’s succession rights in India have made significant progress, particularly since the passage of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956 and its subsequent amendment in 2005. The legal landscape has evolved from discriminating against women in inheritance matters to recognizing their equal coparcenary rights, which were historically rooted in patriarchal norms. The 2005 amendment addressed limitations in the original act, ensuring that daughters have the same status, rights, and liabilities as sons in matters of ancestral property. While there were initial legal challenges to the retrospective effect, judicial decisions such as the Vineeta Sharma case solidified women’s inherent coparcenary rights by birth, marking an important step towards gender equality and empowerment in India’s inheritance laws.
Author(s) Name: Anurakta Sharma (Symbiosis Law School , Nagpur)
Reference(s):
[1]J Juresha Melanie ‘Property Rights Of Women in India’ (iPleaders Blog, 21 June 2022)<https://blog.ipleaders.in/property-rights-of-women-in-india/> accessed 09 January 2024
[2]The Hindu Law of Inheritance Act 1929
[3]The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act 1937
[4] The Hindu Succession Act 1956
[5]The Hindu Succession Act 1956, s 14
[6]Punithavalli Ammal v State of Kerala and Anr(1970) SCR (3) 894
[7]Pratap singh v Union of India (1985) SCC (4) 197
[8] Constitution of India 1950, art 14
[9]Constitution of India 1950, art 15(1)
[10]Agasti Karuna and Anr v Cherukuri Krishnaiah and Ors(1999) 5 ALT 494
[11]The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005
[12]The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
[13]Prakash and Ors v phulavati and OrsCiv 7217/2013
[14]Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma and Ors SLP (Civ) 1767/2020
