 Concept of Succession and legal provision regarding Succession to a Hindu Female

Property in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Subject: Family Law I (Hindu Law)

SUBMITTED BY SUBMITTED TO
PRAKASH SINGH Dr. Gyan Chand Yadav
B.B.A.LL.B. Assistant professor
Roll. No. 13 Narayan school of law
5th SEM GNSU, Jamuhar
Narayan school of law

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr Gyan Chand Yadav sir
who gave the golden opportunity to do this wonderful assignment on the topic of ‘Concept of
Succession and legal provision regarding Succession to a Hindu Female Property in the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956’ Which also help me to know about so many new things.

I’d also like to express my gratitude to my friends and family members for their
recommendations and input throughout the course of the project.

I will never forget their encouragement, and I hope that I will be shown the same kindness and
direction in my future endeavors.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENT
1. Who is Hindu…………………………..………………………………………………….4
2. Introduction……..………………………………………………………………………...4
3. The Hindu Succession Act………………………………………………………………...5
4. Hindu Succession Act, 1956, For Female Intestates……………………………….……..6
5. Legal Provisions Regarding Succession to a Hindu Female Property in the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956……………………………………………………………………...8
6. Section 14 in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956……………………………………………8
 Property……………………………………………………………………….9
 Possessed…………………………………………………………………....17
 Acquired………………………………………………………………….....18
 As a full owner thereof and not as a limited owner……………………...…20
7. Sec.15 in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956…………………………………………...…20
 Scheme of succession…….…………………………………………………21
 Scope………………………………………………………………………..21
 Sub-section (1)……………………………………………………………...22
 Section 15(2) (a)……………………………………………………………..24
8. Gender bias and Section 15 of HSA, 1956………………………………………………25
9. Constitutional Validity………………………………………………………………......26
10. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….……....27
11. References………………………………………………………………………………..28

3
 HINDUS
It is difficult to define the term “Hindu” in reference to religion since Hindu
religion is so diverse and multifaceted that the definition of the term
“Hindu” in terms of Hindu religion is almost an impossible task. From the
point of view of the application of Hindu law, the term “Hindu” is of a very
wide connotation. In its ambit are included:

 All those persons who are Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists by
religion. In this category are also included converts and reconverts to
Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism or Buddhism1.
 All those persons who are born of Hindu, Sikh, Jain or Buddhist
parents (in case only one parent is a Hindu, then the child must be
brought up as Hindu). In this category are included both legitimate
oldage and illegitimate children of such parents 2.
 All those persons who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews,
who are domiciled in India and to whom no other law is applicable. 3

INTRODUCTION
India has been a patriarchal society from the beginning of our modern
history. Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined, with men being
breadwinners and decision-makers while women tend to their spouses and
children and attend to the household chores. But the World we live in is no
longer a man’s playground. We see women in every field not just going toe-
to-toe with the counterparts of their gender but exceeding them in many
ways. But there is always resistance when a society has thrived on certain
traditions and beliefs for thousands of years. Patriarchy, social stigmas and
age-old customs that say women are something lesser to men and aren’t their
equals, unfortunately, a notion that is yet to be vanquished completely. So
even though the principles of natural justice demand fair and equal treatment
to all, in a nation of people still comfortable within the clutches of draconian
ideologies, the law has to bow down to these ideologies to strike a balance.
1
Section 2(1) clauses (a) and (b), Hindu Marriage Act.
2
Section 2(1) clauses (a) and (b), to explanation, Hindu Marriage Act.
3
Section 2(1)(c) Hindu Marriage Act.

4
One such ideology that the law has had to bow down to is Property rights,
or, to be more specific, women’s Right to inherit property. For a law to
discriminate against women when it comes to inheriting the property of their
parents to conform to the sentiments of the regressively traditional populace
is something to think about.
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was one such piece of legislation. The
great matter to be noticed here is that this discriminatory and regressive Act
was passed 9 years after India attained its independence. That is six years
after India became a republic and our constitution guaranteed the Right to
equality under Article 14. This Act explicitly denies a woman’s Right to
inherit the property of her parents and states that the eldest male member of
the family shall be the rightful heir to the family heirloom. It was only in
2005 that an amendment to the Act abolished this discrimination. We shall
now look at the standing of women when it comes to the –

Right of Inheritance from Five Perspectives

 Before the commencement of the Women’s Right to Property Act of
1937
 Enactment of the Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937
 Enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
 The Amendment of 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956

The Amendment of 2005

This was seen as a landmark Amendment as now married women could

inherit their father’s property which was previously only enjoyed by the
male members of the family. In other words, women could now become
coparceners in a succession of the property of the patriarch and held equal
dispositionary rights to the property. The Amendment to Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act that deals with the Devolution of Coparcenary
property has made this possible, and women can also inherit property as
coparceners.

5
 The Hindu Succession Act
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is an Act relating to the succession and
inheritance of property. This Act lays down a comprehensive and uniform
system that incorporates both succession and inheritance. This Act also deals
with intestate or unwilled (testamentary) succession. Therefore, this Act
combines all the aspects of Hindu succession and brings them into its ambit.
Happily, the modern Hindu law of succession is much simpler law than the
old Hindu law. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 lays down uniform law of
succession for all the Hindus. Old Hindu law and customary law of
succession stand abrogated.
The Hindu Succession Act preserves the dual mode of devolution of
property under the Mitakshara school. The joint family property still
devolves by survivorship with this important exception that if a Mitakshara
coparcener dies leaving behind the mother, widow, daughter, daughter’s
daughter, son’s daughter, son’s son’s daughter, son’s widow, son’s son’s
widow or daughter’s son, his interest in the joint family property will
devolve by succession.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 bases its rule of succession on the principle
of propinquity, i.e., preference of heirs on the basis of proximity of
relationship
The rules of Hindu personal law are heavily dependent on the two schools
popularly known as Mitakshara School and Dayabhaga School. According
to the Mitakshara School, there are two modes of devolution of property.
These are:-
 Devolution by survivorship
 Devolution of succession
The rule of survivorship is only applicable with respect to joint family
property or coparcenary property. On the other hand, succession rules apply
to separate property held by a person. However, the Dayabhaga school
places emphasis on succession as the only mode of devolution of property.
The article discusses the rules of succession under the Act and gives an
overview of the whole Act. It also describes the devolution of coparcenary
property along with the major changes brought by it.

6
 Hindu Succession Act, 1956, For
Female Intestates

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was instituted nine years after India gained
independence, and around then, the legislature did not ponder that in times
to come, women in India would get properties voluntarily. Throughout the
long term, women have taken steps in diverse circles. The circumstance in
India has changed significantly from that point forward as women are
becoming forerunners in different fields and, in this manner, own properties
as in their right. Nonetheless, the Act, which additionally covers non-
testamentary succession of Hindus, yet additionally of Buddhists, Jains, and
Sikhs, actually 'contains a cavity concerning self-obtained properties of
women. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 made the
daughter, similar to the son, a coparcener in a joint family. The amendment
guaranteed that women and men became equivalent beneficiaries of
ancestral4 property. The general rule for all kinds of property is that it will
pass on to the children and the husband. The first kind of property, however,
will be inherited by the heirs of her father and the remainder by her
husband's heirs if no one is alive from the predeceased at the time when
succession begins 5. Perhaps, the legislature intended that the property should
revert to the source from which it was received. The subject of inquiry
herein is the succession procedure of the third kind of property, which
includes the self-acquired property or property obtained in any other manner
or from another source, provided she has absolute right in that property. 6
With an end goal to follow the development of the law connecting with
intestate succession from Shastric law to statutory intercessions, an endeavor
has been made to feature the hidden social circumstances that empowered
the continuous change of Hindu law, with each change logically scratching
its evil character. It is essential to seek to take on a viewpoint that analyzes
the premises hidden in the resolutely inconsistent nature of the laws covering
intestate succession to a Hindu female. 7

4
Prabbha Sridevan, A Law that Thwarts Justice
5
Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929
6
DR. POONAM PRADHAN SAXENA, SUCCESSION LAWS AND GENDER JUSTICE
7
Christ University Law Journal, 4, 2 (2015), 147-157 ISSN 2278-4322|doi.org/10.12728/culj.

7
 Legal Provisions Regarding
Succession to a Hindu Female
Property in the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956
 Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.—
(Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or
after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner
thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.—In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and
immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise,
or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or
by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her
marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such
property held by her as stridhana immediately before the commencement
of this Act.
Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired
by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or
order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or
other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate
in such property.
This section is the most remarkable and conspicuous provision of the Act. It
is this provision which has annihilated. The time-old concept of limited
estate held by a Hindu woman popularly known as "Hindu woman's estate"
or a "widow's estate". The fetters on the Hindu woman over her inherited
property have been broken and her status has been brought on par with that
of a man. The spirit of male chauvinism has come to an end.

8
Section 14(1) lays down that any property possessed by a female Hindu
whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act shall be held
by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
The Explanation to sub-sec. (1) deals with the nature of the acquisition of
the property referred to in sub-sec. (1).
Sub-section (2) lays down that nothing contained in sub- sec. (1) shall apply
to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other
instrument, or under a decree or order of a civil court or under an award
where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or decree, order or
award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. Sub- section (2) is in the
nature of a proviso or exemption to sub- sec. (1).
There are four expressions in sub-sec. (1) to section 14 i.e.
(1) Property
(2) Possessed
(3) Acquired
(4) As a full owner thereof and not as a limited owner,
Which gives the clue for the proper understanding and appreciation of the
scope and amplitude of sub- sec(1) of sec 14.

Property
Under the Explanation to sub-sec. (1), "property" includes (a) movable, (b)
immovable property acquired by a female Hindu-

 by inheritance
 by devise
 at a partition
 in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance;
 by gift from any person whether a relative or before, at, or after the
marriage
 by personal skill or exertion
 by purchase

9
  by prescription
 in any other manner whatsoever; and
 Movable and immovable property held as stridhana immediately before
the commencement of the Act.
The Explanation is too wide, exhaustive and elaborate and ends up with the
words "in any manner whatsoever" and includes property held as stridhana.
As pointed out by Mulla, the Explanation suffers from excessive caution, but
the object of the Legislature was to define the term" property" as
comprehensively as possible. 8
As observed by the Supreme Court in Smt. Gulwant Kaur v Mohinder
Singh9,
"It is obvious that s.14 is aimed at removing the restrictions or limitations on
the right of a female Hindu to enjoy as a full owner the property possessed
by her so long as the possession is traceable to a lawful origin, that is to say,
if she had a vestage of a title. It makes no difference whether the property is
acquired by inheritance or devise or at a partition or in lieu of maintenance
or arrears of maintenance or by gift, or by her own skill or exertion or by
purchase or by prescription or in any other manner whatsoever."
(i) BY INHERITANCE

The limited interest inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or son is
"property" within the meaning of this Explanation. Section 14(1) will apply
not only to cases where the Hindu woman inherited property under the
orthodox Hindu Law but also where she got it by virtue of the provisions of
s. 3 of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act10. In Sukhram v
Gaurishankar11, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out
that the interest to which the wife became entitled on the death of her
husband under s. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act in the
property of the joint family was indisputably her property within the
meaning of s. 14(1) and when she became full owner of that property, she
acquired a right unlimited in point of user and duration and uninhibited in

8
Mulla’s Hindu Law , 21st Ed., p. 1173
9
AIR 1987SC 2251; (1987)3 SCC674; (1987)3 SCR 576; JT 1987(3) SC 121.
10
Rangaswami v Chinammal AIR 1964 Mad 384 (DB).
11
AIR 1968 SC 365; (1968)1 SCR 476; (1968)2 SCJ 122.

10
 point of disposition. A Hindu widow who acquired the interest of her
husband in a Hindu coparcenary by virtue of s. 3(2) of the Hindu Women's
Right to Property Act, though not a coparcener, is a statutory member of the
coparcenary. Her exact share in the joint family cannot be predicated until
partition is made and till then, as in the case of other coparceners she will be
having a fluctuating interest in the property which will be increased or
decreased by deaths or additions to the family.

(ii) BY DEVISE

Where a Hindu executed and registered a will on 3.1.1930 bequeathing his

estate for life to his wife and the vested remainder to his brother's son .On
the death of her husband. The widow became the limited owner of the
properties and was possessed of the same on the date of the commencement
of the Hindu Succession Act. It was held that her limited right enlarged into
an absolute right under s. 14(1) of the Act and she became a full owner of
the property and consequently the gift made by her on 13.5.1968 in favor of
her brother was valid12, In Thota Sesharathamma v Thota
Manikyamma13, it was held by the Supreme Court that when a life estate
was granted to a Hindu woman by a will in recognition of her pre-existing
right, her limited interest became absolute estate by the operation of s. 14(1)
of the Hindu Succession Act. The life estate got by her under the will was
"property" within the meaning of s. 14(1). In Ranganayakiammal v
Srinivasa Ragaban14, the property was bequeathed to the wife under a will
on her asking for some property for maintenance. It was held by the High
Court of Madras that what she got was "property" within the meaning of the
Act and it became absolute on the coming into force of the Hindu
Succession Act15

(iii) Partition

In a partition by compromise, the female Hindu was given the property for
her maintenance during her lifetime. It was held that her right became

12
Jinnappa v Kallavva 1982 HLR 437.
13
(1991)4 SCC 312; JT 1991(3) SC 506.
14
AIR 1990 Mad 379.
15
Sakuntala Devi v Kamala (2005)5 SCC 390.

11
 absolute under s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 16. In a family settlement
which is akin to a partition by consensus the suit properties were entrusted to
the wife by the husband after his purchase towards maintenance prior to the
enforcement of the Act. She was in possession and enjoyment of that land
and that was frequently leased out by her to third parties. She was held to
have had a pre-existing right and she became a full or absolute owner on the
coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. 17 In a family arrangement
entered into in 1954 where certain restrictions were put on the widow in that
she could sell her right only to the parties to the documents and their
successors. Subsequent to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession
Act, it was held that her limited right would enlarge into full ownership with
right to transfer of the properties to anyone18. On the death of the sole
surviving male member, a son was adopted to him by his widow prior to the
commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. A daughter was born to him
ten days after his death. By legal fiction, the adopted son became the sole
surviving male member at the time of the death of his adoptive father.
Succession thus opened before the commencement of the Hindu Succession
Act and the right of inheritance was governed by the old Hindu Law as per
which the daughter had no right to seek partition and separate possession of
the joint family property. There was however a compromise decree between
the daughter and the step-brother before the commencement of the Hindu
Succession Act. The daughter acquired right to share in the property of her
deceased father. It was held that after the commencement of the Hindu
Succession Act 1956 such rights as conferred on the daughter thus
crystalised and transformed into full ownership. Mere change in revenue
records did not amount to valid exclusion19 . The joint family consisted of
the father and his only son. The son died leaving behind his childless widow.
Father expired later. Mother died thereafter leaving behind his widowed
daughter-in-law and four daughters. Held that the daughter- in-law was
entitled to yard share and each daughter 1/6th share 20.

16
B.N. Venkatanaranappa v Chikkadaddappa AIR 2006 Kar 154.
17
Pappayammal v Palanisamy AIR 2005 Mad 436.
18
Smt. Vidya Devi v Sriprakash AIR 2009 All 85.
19
Nivrutti Kushaba Binnar v Sakhubai (deceased) by LRS AIR 2009
20
Bom 94. 1 Lehja Bai v Swanti Bai (2009) SCC 800.

12
 (iv) IN LIEU OF MAINTENANCE

There was a difference of opinion among various High Courts in India as to

the nature of the right of maintenance of a Hindu female. According to Prof.
Duncan M. Derrett, the conservative elements in the judiciary wanted to
hold against the right of maintenance being a right in the nature of propriety,
while the progressive elements wanted to treat it as a right in the property
which is sufficient to make its existence serve as a pre-existent right for the
purpose of application of s. 14(1) and ousting the application of s. 14(2) of
the Hindu Succession Act. The conservative position was held by the High
Court of Allahabad in Bas Deo v Director of Consolidation21 by the High
Court of Madras in Santhanam v Subramanian22 and in Pattabiraman v
Parijatham Ammalr23 by the High Court of Orissa in Narayana Patra v
Tara Patrani24 and by the High Court of Rajasthan in Lichmi Chand v
Smt. Sukh Devi25. The Andhra Pradesh High Court took a different view in
Chinnakka v Subbammal26 and the Bombay High Court in B.B. Patil v
Gangabai27. The leading decision in this view is that of the High Court of
Patna in Sumeshwar v Swaminath28 where Their Lordships held that the
right of a Hindu widow to get maintenance out of the joint family property is
not an indefinite right and she does not get maintenance gratis or by way of
charity. She gets it in her right under the Hindu Law. This difference of
opinion was set at rest by the Supreme Court in Tulsamma v Sesha Reddi29
where a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the property
acquired by a Hindu female under a compromise in lieu of satisfaction of her
right of maintenance, the compromise prescribing a limited interest was
"property" falling within the ambit of sub-sec. (1) of s. 14. Their Lordships
pointed out that sub-sec. (1) of s. 14 was large in its amplitude and covered
every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu including

21
1969 All LJ 1023.
22
(1967)1 Mad 68.
23
AIR 1970 Mad 257. 6 AIR 1970 Raj 285. 7 (1968)1 Andh WR 65.
24
AIR 1970 Ori 13.
25
AIR 1970 Raj 285.
26
(1968)1 Andh WR 65.
27
AIR 1972 Bom 16
28
AIR 1970 Pat 348
29
AIR 1977 SC 1944; (1977)3 SCC 99: (1977)3 SCR 201.

13
 acquisition in lieu of maintenance and where such property was possessed
by her on the date of commencement of the Act, she would become the full
owner of the property. In this decision BHAGWATI, J. [as he then was],
speaking for himself and his brother JUDGE A.C. GUPTA, referred to the
inept draftsmanship of s. 14(1) and (2) creating an endless confusion for
litigants and proving a paradise for lawyers and for pleading for the creation
of an authority or body to constantly keep in touch with the adjudicatory
authorities as well as with the legal profession and immediately respond by
making recommendation for suitable amendments whenever it was found
that the particular statutory provision was by reason of inept language or
unhappy draftsmanship created a difficulty of construction or was otherwise
inadequate or defective or was not well conceived and was consequently
counter-productive of the result it was intended to achieve. In a subsequent
decision in Gulwant Kaur v Mohinder Singh30, where the wife got lands in
lieu of maintenance by her husband with limited interest and was enjoying
the produce there from, it was held to be a "property" under s. 14(1) of the
Act which became an absolute estate on the coming into force of the Hindu
Succession Act. A mere right to reside in a house given to a widow during
her life time had been held to be "property" within the meaning of sub-sec.
(1) of s. 1431.

(v) BY GIFT

Where a father made a gift of some agricultural property to the widowed

daughter for life on the ground that she was a destitute in recognition of his
moral obligation of maintaining her, the Supreme Court held that the moral
obligation ripened into a legal obligation and consequently the property
settled on her came within the ambit of s. 14(1) and her limited interest
bloomed into an absolute estate32. In a Madras High Court decision by a
Single Judge in Poojarani Adilakshmi v Krishna Reddiar 33, the father by
a deed dated 12.10.1919 conferred on his young widowed daughter who was
not able to be maintained by her husband's family and was maintained by the

30
AIR 1987 SC 2251; (1987)3 SCC 674: (1987)3 SCR 576; JT 1987(3) SC 121
31
Ramkali v Choudhri Ajit Sankar (1997)9 SCC 613; JT 1997(3) SC
32
Laxmappa v Balawa AIR 1996 SC 3497: (1996)5 SCC 458; JT 1996(7)
33
(2003)2 LW 582.

14
father life interest in some property presumably in lieu of maintenance and it
was held that she got an absolute estate under s. 14(1). A question arose in
that case which was really irrelevant as to whether the document executed
by the father was a deed of settlement or a deed of will. The learned single
Judge observed that "though the deed has been titled as settlement deed, it is
in the nature of the will for the simple reason that the right of enjoyment
alone was given to her and the vested remainder to the testator's son." This
view, it is respectfully pointed out, is unsound and untenable. Even under a
deed of settlement a life interest can be created in favor of one and a gift
over absolutely in favor of another.

A gift made to a Hindu female by any person whether a relative or not,

before, at, or after her marriage is treated as stridhana in all Schools except
in the Dayabhaga School in which it becomes her stridhana after the life-
time of her husband. The Hindu female had absolute power over her
stridhana during maidenhood and widowhood, but during covertures she
could not dispose of the same without the consent of her husband. Such a
gift is included in the Explanation in order to lift the aforesaid limitation.

(vi) BY PERSONAL SKILL OR EXERTION

The property acquired by a Hindu female by her skill or exertion is

"property" falling within the ambit of s. 14(1) and becomes her absolute
property. Under the traditional Hindu Law, a Hindu female had full power of
disposal over such a property only during her maidenhood or widowhood.
But during coverture her power of disposal was subject to the consent of her
husband. This inhibition is now wiped out.

(vii) BY PURCHASE

The property purchased by a Hindu female comes within the ambit of the
Explanation to s. 14(1). The Hindu female had absolute power of disposition
over such property during her maidenhood and widowhood but not during
coverture, when her right was subject to the control of her husband. This
limitation on her power is now lifted.

(viii) BY PRESCRIPTION

15
 Where a Hindu female entitled to maintenance was in adverse possession of
a house belonging to her husband who died in 1918, her limited estate
bloomed into full estate under s. 14(1) of the Act 34. The restriction on her
power of disposition during coverture without her husband's consent is now
annulled.

(ix) IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER

This residuary class brings within its ambit property acquired by a female
Hindu in any other manner. Section 14(1) does not in any term refer to an
award or decree of a civil court. But the Explanation to sub-sec. (1) is
brought in to include property acquired by a female Hindu under an award or
decree. The expression "in any other manner whatsoever" is wide enough to
include any property acquirable under an award or a decree. Again the pre-
Act limitation on her power of alienation during coverture stands abrogated.

The expression "female Hindu" in the heading of s. 14 of the Hindu

Succession Act as well as the expression "any property possessed by the
female Hindu" have to be given a wider interpretation in consonance with
the wishes and desires of the framers of the Constitution. If that is so, the
expression "female Hindu" in s. 14(1) would take in it the "daughter" also
and consequently, the limited interest of the daughter would get enlarged
into full right after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act 1956
when the male Hindu dies before the commencement of the Act leaving
behind his self-acquired property. Where the father puts his daughter in
possession of his self-acquired property, that would fall within the said
expression. The daughter in actual possession of the suit property, on the
coming into force of the Act, would acquire an absolute right in the property
in question. The sale of the suit property by her is valid in law35.

(x) MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES HELD AS

STRIDHANA BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACT

Reference is invited to the various kinds of stridhana and the Hindu female's
rights over her stridhana dealt with earlier under this section. Under the pre-

34
Gulabchand v Sevo Karan AIR 1961 Pat 45.
35
Banu Sahib v Gayathri AIR 1972 Bom 16 (DB). 3 V. Jose v Ramachandran Nair Radhakrishnan AIR 2004 Ker 16.

16
 Act law, her absolute power of disposal was confined to maidenhood and
widowhood. During coverture her right was controlled by her husband
except where the stridhana partook the character of soudayika. This
provision makes her right over her stridhana, whatever be its nature, absolute
during the whole of her life.

The enlargement of the limited ownership of the estate acquired by a female

Hindu by personal skill or exertion or by purchase or by prescription or in
any other manner whatsoever or property held as stridhana before the
commencement of the Act other than saudayika into a full ownership under
s. 14(1) of the Act is intended not only to confer upon her absolute right of
disposition of her property during any period of her life but also to make all
these acquisitions devolve uniformly by testamentary or intestate succession,
as the case may be, under this Act..

(2) Possessed
All the Courts in this country have held that the word "possessed" is of very
wide amplitude and includes not merely actual physical possession, but also
constructive possession as that of an agent, lessee, licensee or a mortgagee 36.
In Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami v Setra Veeravva 37,
the Supreme Court observed that possession referred to in s. 14(1) is not
only actual physical possession or personal occupation of the property by a
Hindu female, it may be possession in law. The possession of a licensee,
lessee or a mortgagee from the female owner or possession by guardian,
trustee or agent of the female owner would be possession for the purpose of
s. 14(1). The word "possessed" is used in s. 14 in a broad sense and in the
context, "possession" means the state of owning or having in one's hands or
power. It includes possession by receipt of rents and profits. Even if a
trespasser were in possession of a land belonging to a female owner, it might
conceivably be regarded as being in possession of the female owner
provided the trespasser has not perfected his title. In Dr. Mahesh Chand
Sharma v Smt. Rajkumari Sharma," it was pointed out that possession
need not necessarily be actual or physical and so long as a female has a right
36
Vengiyamma v Veerayya AIR 1957 AP 280.
37
AIR 1959 SC 577; 1959 Supp (1) SCR 968.

17
 to possession, the mere fact that the female Hindu was not in physical
possession mattered very little. Female Hindu in permissive possession of
her brother's land cannot claim the benefit of s. 14(1) of the Act.11 On a
conspectus of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that s. 14(1) is not intended
to validate the illegal possession of the female Hindu and does not confer
any right on a trespasser or a female who had no right to hold or possess the
property. In order to claim the benefit of s. 14(1), the female Hindu must be
in possession-actual or constructive or legal or with a right to be in
possession. In other words, there must be some vestige of title in her. It
follows that if the female Hindu had already divested her interest as limited
owner or had been divested of her interest as widow on account of
remarriage before the Act came into force 38, she would not become a full
owner of the property, simply because she had not been deprived of her
actual possession when the Act came into force." In that case, the Hindu
widow was in possession of the property in view of her limited right of
maintenance. She married her brother in- law in 1953. Under s. 2 of the
Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act 1856, on remarriage, she was divested of
the property in her possession "as if she had then died". The Supreme Court
pointed out that the Legislature intended that in the event of remarriage of
the widow, she lost the rights of even the limited interest in such property
and after the remarriage the next heirs of her deceased husband shall there
upon succeed to the property. Their Lordships proceeded to observe that
even if her remarriage in 1953 with her brother-in-law was void in law that
did not obliterate the disqualification incurred by her by reason of the
remarriage was enjoying her share as her separate and independent property
even on the date of enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act. It was held
that the right of the daughter- in-law over the said property enlarged into an
absolute estate under s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act."

(3) Acquired
The word "acquired" means, according to Oxford Dictionary, "comes into
possession" or "gain by and for oneself39 In Badri Prasad v Smt.
38
Velamuri Venkata Sivuprasad (dead) by LRS v Kothuri Venkatesworlu AIR 2000 SC 434: (2000)2 SCC 139.
39
Kamuri Sri Sankara Hao v Kannuri Rajalachamma AIR 1961 AP 241

18
 Kansodevi40, Their Lordships held that the word "acquired" in sub-sec. (1)
of s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act has to be given the widest possible
meaning. In Tulsamma's case41. BHAGWATI, J. (as His Lordship then
was) speaking for the Bench held that sub-sec. (1) of s. 14 was very wide in
its amplitude and covered every kind of acquisition of property by a female
Hindu. In Punithavalli v Minor Ramakrishnamma42 a three-Judge Bench
of the Apex court held that the section made a complete departure from all
texts of Hindu law and rules and those texts cannot be used to circumvent
the plain meaning of s. 14(1) of the said Act. In Erramma's case43,
JUSTICE K. RAMASAMI speaking for the Court held, quite rightly, "if I
may say so with respect, that s. 14(1) contemplated that a female Hindu
who, in the absence of the said provision, would have been a limited owner
of the property, shall now become the full owner by virtue of this section."
This conclusion, it is respectfully submitted is the crux of the matter and
puts in a nutshell the scope and amplitude of the expressions "possessed"
and "acquired". There must therefore be an acquisition of some right in
whatever manner and however little it may be, before a Hindu female can
claim absolute right in the properties possessed by her. On the other hand, if
such a right was so acquired for the first time under an instrument after the
Act came into force, s. 14(2) of the Act will alone be attracted44. In that case,
the husband executed a deed of gift granting life interest to his wife in his
share of the partitioned joint family properties which the Courts concurrently
found was not in lieu of maintenance, ultimately to go to his minor son. His
intention was clear that the mother should act as caretaker of the property on
behalf of the minor son and hence her right did not bloom into an absolute
right under s. 14(1) of the Act.

40
AIR 1970 SC 1963.
41
AIR 1977 SC 1944.
42
AIR 1970 SC 1730
43
AIR 1966 SC 1879.

44
Gaddam Ramakrishna Reddy v Gaddam Rami Reddy (2010)9 SCC

19
 (4) As full owner and not as a limited owner
These words show that in the circumstances mentioned in s. 14(1) of the
Act, the limited interest held by the female Hindu will, on and from the date
of commencement of the Act, be held by her as full owner. It is the limited
interest that is transformed into an absolute interest. In Eramma v
Veerupanna45, Their Lordships observed "The words 'as full owner thereof
and not as limited owner' as given in the last portion of sub-sec. (1) of s. 14
clearly suggest that the legislature intended that birth limited ownership of a
Hindu female should be changed into full ownership. In other words, s.
14(1) of the Act contemplates that a Hindu female who, in the absence of
this provision, would have been a limited owner of the property, will now
become full owner of the same by virtue of this section. The object of the
section is to extinguish the estate called limited estate. or widow's estate
under Hindu Law and to make a Hindu woman, who, under the old Law,
would have been only a limited owner, a full owner of the property with all
Halt powers of disposition and to make the estate heritable by her own heirs
and not revertible to the heirs of the last male holder."

Sec.15
General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.

(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve

according to the rules set out in section 16,-(a) firstly, upon the sons and
daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter)
and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the
father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1),

45
AIR 1966 SC 1879

20
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother
shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased
(including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter), not upon the
other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but
upon the heirs of the father; and

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from
her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of
the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter)
not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order
specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband."

Scope
Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act has rendered uniform rules of
succession to the property of a Hindu female dying intestate after the
commencement of the Act irrespective of the source of acquisition of the
property, irrespective of her status, married or unmarried, and irrespective of
the school to which she belonged. The law of inheritance of the property of a
Hindu female for the first time in the legislative history has been systematic.
Though the rules of inheritance lay down under s. 15 cannot be claimed to
be ideal, the attempt to codify and systematic this branch of Hindu law is
indeed commendable.

Scheme of succession
Section 15 of the Act classifies the property of a Hindu female into three
categories viz.-

(1) property over which she has an absolute right of disposition on the date
of her death after the commencement of the Act excluding the property in
categories (2) and (3) below;

(2) Property inherited by the Hindu female from her father or mother;

(3) Property inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law.

21
 Sub-section (1)
Sub-section (1) lays down the general order of succession in respect of the
properties set out in categories 1 to 3. The order of succession in sub-sec. (1)
is as follows:

(a) Firstly, upon the sons and daughters including children of any
predeceased son or daughter, and the husband46

(b) Secondly, upon the heirs of the husband 47

(c) Thirdly, upon the mother and father

(d) Fourthly, upon the heirs of the father

(e) Lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

Entry (a) - Sons and daughters, sons and daughters of a predeceased

son or daughter I. e. Grand children and the husband

These heirs shall succeed simultaneously by sharing equally to the exclusion

of other heirs as per Section 16. However, the children of a predeceased
son/daughter will not be taking per capita with the son or daughter or
husband of the intestate but will be taken between them the share which their
father or mother would have taken if were alive at the time of the death of
the intestate i.e. they will take per stripe. In other words, such children will
divide the share falling under the share of their predeceased father or mother.

Entry (b) - Heir of husband

On the failure of heirs in entry (a), the property will be passed upon the heirs
of the husband. Since the property is deemed to be that of her husband, the
inheritance will be determined by the law regarding succession to the
property of a Hindu male as per Section 8. Thus, the husband shall be
deemed to have died immediately after the female Hindu died as per Section

46
Dilipkumar v Damodar Narayan Rao AIR 2006
47
Ibid

22
16. Heirs of the husband do not mean ‘all persons who could have been the
heirs of such husband’.

The widow of a predeceased son, widow of the deceased brother of the

husband, sister of the husband, or even a remote cousin of the husband
would fall in the category ‘heirs of the husband’.

It is to be noted that the ‘heir of husband’ is considered ‘near in relation’ to a

childless widow, in comparison to her parents and brothers and sister which
are placed in the later entry. Thus, a woman’s blood relations are relegated
to an inferior placement in comparison to the category of ‘heirs of husband’
(relations by marriage). No other succession law, including Muslim law,
gives statutory preference to the in-laws over a woman’s blood relatives.
This is so when a Hindu male dies, none of the wife’s relatives can ever
inherit his property.

Entry (c) - Father and mother of the deceased female

Father/Mother does not include a step-father/mother, but adoptive

mother/father is included. However, step-father/mother could succeed as
‘heir of mother’ and the latter as ‘heir of a father’. Where the marriage of the
parents was a void marriage or an annulled voidable marriage, the parents
inherit from such children. Even if the deceased female was an illegitimate
daughter of the mother, a mother will inherit, however, a putative father will
not inherit.

Entry (d) - Heir of the father

Since the property is deemed to be that of her father, the inheritance will be
determined by the law regarding ‘succession to the property of a Hindu
male’ as per Section 8. Thus, the father shall be deemed to have died
immediately after the female Hindu died as per Section 16. Heirs of the
father do not mean ‘all persons who could have been the heirs of such
father.’ The category will include brothers and sisters including half-blood
brothers/sisters and their descendants, grandparents and other natal relations.

Entry (e)- Heir of the mother

23
 Since the property is deemed to be that of her father, the inheritance will be
determined by the law regarding ‘succession to the property of a Hindu
female’ under Section 15 and Section 16. Thus, the mother shall be deemed
to have died immediately after the female Hindu died as per Section 16.
Heirs of the mother do not mean ‘all persons who could have been the heirs
of such mother.’ The category will include the uterine brother/sister and
their descendants.

Section 15(2) (a)

This clause lays down that any property inherited by a female Hindu from
her father or mother shall devolve in the absence of any son or daughter of
the deceased including the children of any predeceased son or daughter not
upon the other heirs referred to in sub-sec. (1) in the order specified therein
but upon their heirs of the father. In Arunachalathammal v Ramachandra
Iyer48, it was held that succession to a childless female who died leaving the
property inherited from her father including the share obtained by him on
partition would be governed by the rules laid down in s. 15(2)(a) as if the
property had been her father's. Section 15(2)(a) comes into operation only if
the deceased female dies intestate leaving no son or daughter or any child of
any predeceased son or daughter. Where the daughter died issueless, the
properties inherited by her from her father, devolved upon the heirs of her
father and not on the husband or her in-laws49. In Sangappa v M.M.
Suddamma50, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of her deceased father's
properties against her deceased brother's wife and children. During the
pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died issueless. Her husband got himself
implied as heir to his wife. The trial Court decreed the suit for partition. A
Bench of the High Court of Karnataka held that as the plaintiff had no issue,
her husband had no right to claim as heir to his wife who died issueless and
claim any share in the properties of her father. Section 15(1) had no
application. Section 15(2) (a) alone applied.

48
AIR 1963 Mad 255.
49
Anandilal v Ramlal AIR 2010 MP 21; N.I. Sarawari v D.S. Lakamoji
50
AIR 2006 Kar 260.

24
Gender bias and Section 15 of HSA,
1956
Generally, in India and the world over, the woman goes into the family of
her husband after marriage and not otherwise. A woman gives up her natal
family ties and assumes her husband’s name after marital ties. Hence,
intestate succession for Hindus (females) has taken into consideration this
ground reality.

In practice, considering the present Hindu Succession Act, the property of

the female is not likely ever to devolve on a female Hindu’s parents, as the
list of the husband’s heirs is so exhaustive. However, there is no such
provision when it comes to the devolution of a Hindu Male’s property. Also,
any property that devolved on a female through her husband would be
reverted to the husband’s heirs on her demise. However, similar
consideration is not given to a property that a woman acquires through the
exercise of her skills. It’s so absurd that on the death of a Hindu female,
intestate and childless and with no surviving husband the unrelated distant
relatives of the husband’s family have a stronger claim to the Hindu
female’s property than her own natal family.

It can be said that Section 15 is extremely discriminatory because the

female’s property, even if self-acquired, is not inherited by her core heirs.
Further, a Hindu female, who could succeed to an estate of another Hindu
female as an heir, has a chance only after the distant relatives of the husband
of the deceased female who is not even known to her. Therefore, Section 15
should be considered ultra virus of the scheme of the Constitution and hence
invalid.

In contrast, if a Hindu Male dies intestate and childless leaving behind no

surviving wife, his wife’s relatives cannot stake any claim in her husband’s
property. His mother has the highest priority of succession followed by his

25
 father and siblings, distant relatives, etc. however, his wife’s natal family has
no claim to the property. This is highly discriminatory.

Constitutional validity
The Constitutional validity of s. 15(2) was challenged before the High Court
of Bombay in Somu Bai Yashwant Jadeav v Balagovinda Yadav 51 as
violative of the provisions of Arts. 14 & 15 of the Constitution on the
ground of sex discrimination. Rejecting the argument, the learned Judge held
that if the property has come from the father or the mother of a Hindu
woman by inheritance, the law, in furtherance of the clear objective to
continue the family unity, directs that such property should go to the heirs of
the father and the mother and not to the heirs of the husband. It is only when
the property is inherited from the husband that the provisions require that it
should devolve on the heirs of the husband. The learned Judge concluded
that upon an analysis of the entire section, it was hard to find any
discrimination which lays hostile discrimination, much less hostile
discrimination only on the ground of sex in the provisions of s. 15(2)(b) of
the Hindu Succession Act.

51
AIE 1983 BOM 156

26
 CONCLUSION
The succession laws for Hindu women follow the Hindu Succession Act,
1925 in case there is a will, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in case the
woman dies intestate. While Section 14 defines what constitutes a woman’s
property, Sections 15 & 16 lay down the rules and order of inheritance.

Section 14 does not differentiate between inherited and self-acquired

property and includes all the property obtained through ‘inheritance or
devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance,
or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her
marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription,
or in any other manner, and also any such property held by her as streedhan.’
Section 15 lists the successors of a woman’s property. Here, there is a
distinction depending on whether the property is inherited or not. Section 15
(1) deals with ‘general property’, that is, self-acquired property or that
received via gift, will, settlement, prescription, etc. Section 15 (2), on the
other hand, deals only with property inherited by a woman from her parents,
husband or father-in-law.

If the property is self-acquired, the husband is predeceased and there are

no kids, it will go to the husband’s heirs, not to her parents, siblings or other
relatives. In inherited property, there is a further distinction based on the
source of inheritance. As per Section 15 (2)(a), if the property is inherited
from her parents, it devolves to the father’s heirs in the absence of any kids.
As per Section 15 (2) (b), if the property is inherited from her husband or
father-in-law, it devolves, in the absence of kids, to husband’s heirs.

27
 References
 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/legal/will/inheritance-
and-succession-laws-for-women-who-pass-away-without-a-
will/muslims/slideshow/89041843.cms
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-15-of-the-hindu-succession-act-1956-
gender-bias-and-the-need-for-reform/
 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/5519/1/hindu_succ
ession_act%2C_1956.pdf
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1202482/
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Succession_Act,_1956
 https://www.livelaw.in/lawschoolcolumn/hindu-succession-act-for-
female-intestates-221707
 Hindu Succession: Universal Law Publishing
 The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
 The Property Rights of Hindu Women Paperback – Mishra Sharad
Chandra
 Women and the Law of Succession in India - Dr Ashmita Yadav

28