1

GENDER EQUITY UNDER HINDU SUCCESSION ACT

PROJECT WORK BY : VIBHUTI SHARMA

ROLL NO. : 1772

YEAR : 2nd

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO : Mrs. POOJA SRIVASTAVA

FACULTY : FAMILY LAW - II

RESEARCH WORK SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT

FOR THE COURSE: FAMILY LAW - II

FOR ATTAINING THE DEGREE: B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

MARCH, 2019

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR

PATNA
 2

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 3
RESEARCH METHODS ...................................................................................................... 4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................................ 5
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... 6
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 1 : HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2 : THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956..................................................... 12
CHAPTER 3: AMENDMENTS TO HINDU SUCCESSION ACT AND GENDER
EQUALITY ........................................................................................................................ 17
CHAPTER 4: IMPACT OF 2005 AMENDMENT ON THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT. 21
CHAPTER 5 : EXISTING DISCRIMINATIONS ............................................................... 24
Women As A Coparcener: ........................................................................................... 26
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 28
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 31
 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Any project completed or done in isolation is unthinkable. This project, although prepared by
me, is a culmination of efforts of a lot of people. Firstly, I would like to thank our Professor
for Family Law, Mrs. Pooja Srivastava, for her valuable suggestions towards the making of
this project.

Further to that, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who were a lot
of help for the completion of this project. The contributions made by my classmates and
friends are, definitely, worth mentioning.

I would like to express my gratitude towards the library staff for their help in finding the
relevant books and journals and other official staff who have also extended help whenever
needed.

Also last, but far from the least, I would express my gratitude towards my parents and the
Almighty for obvious reasons.

VIBHUTI SHARMA
 4

RESEARCH METHODS

 Research Methodology :

The researcher has primarily relied on the doctrinal method. The research is based on
comprehensive study of and Books, Journals, articles, web sources etc.

 Aims and Objectives :

1. To study the women rights relating to property.
2. Analyze the role of Hindu Succession Act relating to property right of women’s.

 Research Questions : The researcher will try to answer the following questions in
her paper.
1. What was the position of women in the succession prior to the amendment of
2005?
2. Has the gender equity come at par with men after the amendment?
 Sources of data:
1. Primary Sources : Hindu Succession Act.
2. Secondary sources : Books, Newspapers, Articles, Journals.
 Hypothesis : The researcher presumes that :
All though the laws have been made for the protection of women interest but these
seems to be not sufficient for protection of women interest.

LIMITATIONS

The limitation of this research work is paucity of time as the research work would be
restricted to two weeks only.
 5

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

 Lexis Nexis, Justice K. Kannan Paruk, The Indian Succession Act, IV Ed.

The book is an amalgamation of extensive discussion on selective discrimination resulting

from Amendment Act 26 of 2002 and its effect Examines the recognition given to
relationships not governed by formal matrimonial ties and the legal consequences of such
relationships especially in the context of property rights Discusses unresolved issues such as
the need for incorporating the rules of private international law to the law of succession in
India Contains maximum case law from the Original Jurisdictions of Calcutta, Madras and
Bombay High Courts, new topics & headings and English case law Provides detailed
discussion and critical analysis on latest landmark judgments on the Law of Succession
Incorporates suggestions for changes of several provisions Provides incisive analysis of
judgments of the High Courts and comprehensive coverage of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court.

 Lexis Nexis, Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Laws, III Ed.

The book deals with laws relating to property and succession, which have tremendous
practical importance as they form the subject of a substantial portion of the litigation in
Indian courts.Covers all major aspects of the law of succession relating to Hindus, Muslims,
Christians and Parsis.Examines, in particular, fundamental concepts dealing with the joint
family, coparcenary, partition, interstate succession as well as the law relating to gifts, wills
and inheritance.The author analyses major judgments of the Supreme Court and the various
High Courts on issues such as the rights of a daughter with respect to coparcenary property
and the applicability of the laws of inheritance for apportionment of ex gratia payment. Also
examines certain contradictions between the provisions of Central and State legislations post
the 2005 Amendment Act The book is essential for LLB students, professors teaching in law
schools, students and scholars of gender studies and will be a valuable asset to law and social
science libraries.
 6

ABSTRACT

Women since the vedic times were held in great regard and enjoyed various rights and
privileges. She shared equal rights and obligations with her husband. However, the only
discrimination they were subjected to was in matters of inheritance but they were never
excluded completely from inheriting. Slowly this discrimination crept into other areas.
Currently the presence of fewer rights of women than men in Indian Personal laws is
generally attributed to the sanctity of religious law. Several changes effected over the decades
indicate the selective application of sanctity argument.

Realising the importance of equal status of women the Law commission suo moto took note
of the issue and made recommendations of an extreme nature in its 174th report, 2000 on
“Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms on Hindu Law”.

Dominance of Males in succession i.e., male is the head of the joint family and therefore he
holds the right to ancestral property.
 7

INTRODUCTION

In the recent legislative proposals amending the Hindu Succession Act are important steps
towards gender equality and abolition of the paternal system of inheritance prevailing among
Hindus. It also gives daughters and equal share in agricultural property. The Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Bill 2004 passed unanimously by the LOK Sabha, comes after a
long gap; the Act was passed in 1956.1 The present debate about removing discrimination
against women to a large extent remains confined to the experts. The law, obtuse at the best
of times, takes on an even more tedious character when it comes to inheritance laws. The
Constitution of India provides that every person is entitled for equality before law and equal
protection of the laws and thereby prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, creed and
sex. The discrimination on the basis of sex is permissible only as protective measures to the
female citizens as there is need to empower women who have suffered gender discrimination
for centuries. Empowerment of women, leading to an equal social status with men hinges,
among other things, on their right to hold and inherit property. Civilized societies across the
globe ensure that women's inheritance rights are more secure than those of men because
women take on the tremendous responsibility of producing and nurturing the next generation.
In India, women's rights have suffered serious setbacks among all communities. Before 1956
Despite the Hindu Succession Act being passed in 1956, which gave women equal
inheritance rights with men, the mitakshara coparcenary system was retained and the
government refused to abolish the system of joint family. According to this system, in the
case of a joint family, the daughter gets a smaller share than the son . While dividing the
father's property between the mother, brother and sister, the share is equal. The Constitution
of India enshrines the principle of gender equality in its Preamble and Parts III, IV and IVA
pertaining to Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles respectively.
The Constitution not only grants equality to women, but also empowers the State to adopt
measures of positive discrimination in favour of women. And now as India becomes
increasingly aware of the need for equal rights for women, the government can't afford to
overlook, property rights have a deep impact on the national economy. The need to dispense
gender justice raises deep political debate and at times acrimony in legislative forums. This
enthused the house to move a bill to make amendments in the Hindu Succession Act, to
secure the rights of women in the area of property. The aim is to end gender discrimination in
Mitakshara coparcenary by including daughters in the system. Mitakshara is one of the two

1
http://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume8/issue-1/article7.html (Last Retrieved 05/03/19, 7:11 PM)
 8

schools of Hindu Law but it prevails in a large part of the country. Under this, a son, son's
son, great grandson and great great grandson have a right by birth to ancestral property or
properties in the hands of the father and their interest is equal to that of the father. The group
having this right is termed a coparcenary. The coparcenary is at present confined to male
members of the joint family, it has been further elucidated in the project. The Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is a landmark. After 50 years, the Government finally
addressed some persisting gender inequalities in the 1956 Hindu Succession Act (1956 HSA),
which itself was path-breaking. The 2005 Act covers inequalities on several fronts:-
agricultural land; Mitakshara joint family property; parental dwelling house; and certain
widow's. The amendment has come into operation from 2005; our project makes an analysis
of this amendment, in that specifically dealing with changes brought in the woman's property
rights in Mitakshara joint family property, what effects it will have on the position of women,
loopholes in the amendment, its advantages and disadvantages and few suggestions to make it
more effectual.
 9

CHAPTER 1 : HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

A woman in a joint Hindu family, consisting both of man and woman, had a right to
sustenance, but the control and ownership of property did not vest in her. In a patrilineal
system, like the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, a woman, was not given a birth right in the
family property like a son. Under the Mitakshara law, on birth, the son acquires a right and
interest in the family property. According to this school, a son, grandson and a greatgrandson
constitute a class of coparcenars, based on birth in the family. No female is a member of the
coparcenary in Mitakshara law. Under the Mitakshara system, joint family property devolves
by survivorship within the coparcenary. This means that with every birth or death of a male
in the family, the share of every other surviving male either gets diminished or enlarged. If a
coparcenary consists of a father and his two sons, each would own one third of the property.
If another son is born in the family, automatically the share of each male is reduced to one
fourth. The Mitakshara law also recognises inheritance by succession but only to the property
separately owned by an individual, male or female. Females are included as heirs to this kind
of property by Mitakshara law. Before the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act 1929,
the Bengal, Benares and Mithila subschools of Mitakshara recognised only five female
relations as being entitled to inherit namely - widow, daughter, mother, paternal grandmother,
and paternal great-grandmother.2 The Madras sub-school recognised the heritable capacity of
a larger number of females heirs that is of the son's daughter, daughter's daughter and the
sister, as heirs who are expressly named as heirs in Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment)
Act, 1929.3 The son's daughter and the daughter's daughter ranked as bandhus in Bombay
and Madras. The Bombay school which is most liberal to women, recognised a number of
other female heirs, including a half sister, father's sister and women married into the family
such as stepmother, son's widow, brother's widow and also many other females classified as
bandhus. The Dayabhaga school neither accords a right by birth nor by survivorship though a
joint family and joint property is recognized. It lays down only one mode of succession and
the same rules of inheritance apply whether the family is divided or undivided and whether
the property is ancestral or selfacquired. Neither sons nor daughters become coparceners at
birth nor do they have rights in the family property during their father's life time 4. However,
on his death, they inherit as tenants-in-common. It is a notable feature of the Dayabhaga
School that the daughters also get equal shares along with their brothers. Since this ownership
2
Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law (1998 17th ed. by SA Desai), p. 168.
3
Ibid.
4
State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75
 10

arises only on the extinction of the father's ownership none of them can compel the father to
partition the property in his lifetime and the latter is free to give or sell the property without
their consent. Therefore, under the Dayabhaga law, succession rather than survivorship is the
rule. If one of the male heirs dies, his heirs, including females such as his wife and daughter
would become members of the joint property, not in their own right, but representing him.
Since females could be coparceners, they could also act as kartas, and manage the property
on behalf of the other members in the Dayabhaga School. However, during the British
regime, the country became politically and socially integrated, but the British Government
did not venture to interfere with the personal laws of Hindus or of other communities. During
this period, however, social reform movements raised the issue of amelioration of the
woman's position in society. 5

The earliest legislation bringing females into the scheme of inheritance is the Hindu Law of
Inheritance Act, 1929. This Act, conferred inheritance rights on three female heirs, i.e., son's
daughter, daughter's daughter and sister (thereby creating a limited restriction on the rule of
survivorship). Another landmark legislation conferring ownership rights on woman was the
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act (XVIII of) 1937.

This Act brought about revolutionary changes in the Hindu Law of all schools, and brought
changes not only in the law of coparcenary but also in the law of partition, alienation of
property, inheritance and adoption. 6 The Act of 1937 enabled the widow to succeed along
with the son and to take a share equal to that of the son. But, the widow did not become a
coparcener even though she possessed a right akin to a coparcenary interest in the property
and was a member of the joint family. The widow was entitled only to a limited estate in the
property of the deceased with a right to claim partition. 7 A daughter had virtually no
inheritance rights. Despite these enactments having brought important changes in the law of
succession by conferring new rights of succession on certain females, these were still found
to be incoherent and defective in many respects and gave rise to a number of anomalies and
left untouched the basic features of discrimination against women. These enactments now
stand repealed. The framers of the Indian Constitution took note of the adverse and

5
Anant Gopalrao Shende v. Jankibai Gopalrao Shende, AIR 1984 Bom 319, 322; Also in Fulsing Ramsingh
Rajput v. Durgabai, AIR 1997 Bom 201
6
Mayne's, Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage, (1996 14th Edn., edt. by Alladi Kuppuswami p. 1065
7
M. Indira Devi, "Woman's Assertion of Legal Rights to Ownership of property" in Women & Law
Contemporary Problems, (1994 edt. by L. Sarkar & B. Sivaramayya) p. 174; also section 3(3) of Hindu
Women's Right to Property Act, 1937
 11

discrimnatory position of women in society and took special care to ensure that the State took
positive steps to give her equal status. Articles 14, 15(2) and (3) and 16 of the Constitution of
India, thus not only inhibit discrimination against women but in appropriate circumstances
provide a free hand to the State to provide protective discrimination in favour of women.
These provisions are part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Part IV
of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles which are no less fundamental in the
governance of the State and inter alia also provide that the State shall endeavor to ensure
equality between man and woman. Notwithstanding these constitutional mandates/directives
given more than fifty years ago, a woman is still neglected in her own natal family as well as
in the family she marries into because of blatant disregard and unjustified violation of these
provisions by some of the personal laws. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of
India expressed his unequivocal commitment to carry out reforms to remove the disparities
and disabilities suffered by Hindu women. As a consequence, despite the resistance of the
orthodox section of the Hindus, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted and came into
force on 17th June, 1956. It applies to all the Hindus including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. It
lays down a uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and applies to those governed
both by the Mitakshara and the Dayabahaga Schools and also to those in South India
governed by the the Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana, Nambudri and other systems of Hindu
Law.
 12

CHAPTER 2 : THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

Gender Position before 2005 Amendment:-

The very preamble of the Act signifies that an Act to amend and codify laws relating to
intestate succession among Hindus. The Act aims to lay down an uniform law of succession
whereas attempt has been made to ensure equality inheritance rights between sons and
daughters. It applies to all Hindus including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. It lays down an
uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and .applies to those governed by the
Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools as well as other schools. 8 The Hindu Succession Act
reformed the Hindu personal law and gave women greater property rights, allowing her f
ownership rights instead of limited rights in property. The daughters were also granted
property rights in their father's estate. In the matter of succession of property of a Hindu male
dying intestate, the Act lays, down a set of general rules in sections 8 to 13. Sections 15 and
16 of the act contain separate general rules affecting succession to the property of a fem
intestate. Under section 8 of the Act three Classes. 9

As per the Law Commission Report, coparcenary constitutes a narrower body of persons
within a joint family and consists of father, son, son's son and son's son's son. Thus ancestral
property continues to be governed by a wholly patrilineal regime, wherein property descends
only through the male line as only the male members of a Joint Hindu Family have an interest
by birth in the coparcenary property, in contradiction with the absolute or separate property
of an individual coparcener, devolve upon surviving coparceners in the family, according to
the rule of devolution by survivorship. Since a woman could not be a coparcener, she was not
entitled to a share in the ancestral property by birth. Section 6 of the Act, although it does not
interfere with the special rights of I those who are members of a mitakshara coparcenary,
recognises, without abolishing joint family property, the right upon death of a coparcener, of
certain members of his preferential heirs to claim an interest in the property that would have
been allotted to such coparcener if a partition of the joint family property had in fact taken
place immediately before his death. Thus section 6 of the Act, while recognising the rule of
devolution by survivorship among the members of the coparcenary, makes an exception to
the rule in the proviso. According to the proviso, if the deceased has left a surviving female
relative specified in Class I of the Schedule I or a male relative specified in that Class who

8
Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantans and Nambudri
9
Gotraja, Sapindas, Samanodlakas and Bandhus
 13

claims through such female relation, the interest of a deceased in mitakshara coparcenary
property shall devolve by testamentary of intestate succession under the Act and not as
survivorship.10 Thus non-conclusion of women as coparceners in the joint family property
under the mitakshara system as reflected in section 6 of the Act relating to devolution of
interest in coparcenary property, has been under criticism for being violative of the equal
rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution in relation to property rights. This means
that females cannot inherit ancestral property as males do. If a joint family gets divided, each
male coparcener takes his share and females get nothing. Only when one of the coparceners
dies, a female gets share of his interest as an heir to the deceased. Further as per the proviso
to section 6 of the Act, the interest of the deceased male in the mitakshara coparcenary
devolve by intestate succession firstly upon the heirs specified in Class I of Schedule I. Under
this Schedule there are only four primary heirs, namely son, daughter, widow and mother. For
the remaining eight, the principle of representation goes up to two degrees in the male line of
descent. But in the female line of descent, it goes only up to one degree. Thus the son's son's
son and the son's son's daughter get a share but a daughter's daughter's son and daughter's
daughter's daughter do not get anything. Again as per section- 23 of the Act married daughter
is denied the right to residence in the parental home unless widowed, deserted or separated
from her husband and female heir has been disentitled to ask for partition in respect of
dwelling house wholly occupied by members of joint family until the male heirs choose to
divide their respective shares therein. These provisions have been identified as major sources
of disabilities thrust by law on woman. Another controversy is the establishment of the right
to will the property. A man has full testamentary power over his property including his
interest in the coparcenary. On the whole the Hindu Succession Act 12gave a weapon to a
man to deprive a woman of the rights she earlier had under certain schools of Hindu Law.
The legal right of Hindus to bequeath property by way of will was conferred by the Indian
Succession Act, 1925.11

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - A Prologue:-

This amending Act of 2005 is an attempt to remove the discrimination as contained in the
amended section- 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters in
the Hindu mitakshara coparcenary property as to sons have. Simultaneously section23 of the
Act as disentitles the female heir to ask for partition in respect of dwelling house wholly

10
7th Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee
11
Before amendment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in 2005
 14

occupied by a Joint Family until male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein,
was omitted by this Amending Act. As a result the disabilities of female heirs were removed.
12
This is a great step of the government so far the Hindu Code is concerned.

This is the product of 174th Report of the Law Commission of India on "Property Rights of
Women: Proposed Reform under the Hindu Law". First, the 2005 act, by deleting a major
gender discriminatory clause - Section 4 (2) of the 1956 HSA - has made women's
inheritance rights in agricultural land equal to men's. Section 4(2) excluded from the purview
of the HSA significant interests in agricultural land, the inheritance of which was subject to
the succession rules specified in state-level tenurial laws. Especially in the north-western
states, these laws were highly gender unequal and gave primacy to male lineal descendants in
the male line of descent. Women came very low in the succession order and got only a
limited estate. The new legislation brings male and female rights in agricultural land on par
for all states, overriding any inconsistent state laws. 13 This can potentially benefit millions of
women dependent on agriculture for survival. Second, the 2005 act makes all daughters,
including married ones, coparceners in joint family property. The 1956 HSA distinguished
between separate property and joint family property. 14

The separate property of a (non-matrilineal) Hindu male dying intestate (without leaving a
will) went equally to his class I heirs, viz, son, daughter, widow and mother (and specified
heirs of predeceased children). On joint family property, those previously governed by
`Mitakshara' (prevailing in most of India) differed from those governed by `Dayabhaga'
(prevailing in Bengal and Assam). For the latter, joint family property devolved like separate
property. But in Mitakshara joint family property, while the deceased man's "notional" share
went intestate to all class I heirs (including females) in equal parts; sons, as coparceners,
additionally had a direct birthright to an independent share. Sons could also demand partition
of the joint family property; daughters could not. The 2005 act does not touch separate
property. But it makes daughters coparceners in the Mitakshara joint family property, with
the same birthrights as sons to shares and to seek partition. In addition, the act makes the
heirs of predeceased sons and daughters more equal. Third, the 2005 act by deleting Section
23 of the 1956 HSA gives all daughters (including those married) the same rights as sons to
reside in or seek partition of the parental dwelling house. Section 23 disallowed married

12
Janabai Ammal v. T.A.S. Palani Mudaliar, AIR 1981 Mad 62 : 1981 HLR 384 (Mad)
13
Ambika R. Nair v. Union of India, TA No. 467 of 1986
14
https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/2005_5_19.htm#Note20 (Last Retrieved 05/03/19, 7:15 PM)
 15

daughters (unless separated, deserted or widowed) even residence rights in the parental home,
and unmarried daughters had rights of residence but not partition. 15 Fourth, the legislation
removes a discriminatory section which barred certain widows from inheriting the deceased's
property, if they had remarried. According to the amending Act of 2005, in a Joint Hindu
Family governed by the mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall, also by birth
become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son heir. She shall have the
same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. She
shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect of the said coparcenary
property as that of a son and any reference to a Hindu mitakshara coparencer shall be deemed
to include a reference to a daughter. But this provision shall not apply to a daughter married
before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005. This
provision shall not affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including partition or
testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before 20th December,
2004.Further any property to which female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of above
provision shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be
regarded, as property capable of being disposed of by her by will and other testamentary
disposition. The provision was also made that where a Hindu dies after the commencement of
the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu
Family governed by the Mitakshara Law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate
succession under the Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be
deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place. Further the daughter is allotted
the same share as is allotted to a son. The provision was also made that the share of the
predeceased son or a predeceased daughter as they would have got, had they been alive at the
time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such predeceased son or of such
predeceased daughter. Further the share of the pre-deceased child of a predeceased son or of a
pre deceased daughter as such child would have got, had he or she been alive at the time of
the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son
or a predeceased daughter. The most important fact is that the interest of a Hindu mitakshara
coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to
him if a partition of the property bad taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of
whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. 16This amending Act of 2005 has also clear

15
Savita Samvedi v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 380
16
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Hindu-Succession-Act-before-after-Amendment-Brief-analysis-of-
judgments-8137.asp (Last Retrieved 06/03/19, 08:16 PM)
 16

provision that, after commencement of the Amending Act of 2005, no court shall recognise
any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great grandson for the recovery of any debt
due from his father, grandfather or great grandfather (on the ground of the pious obligation
under the Hindu Law), of such son, grandson or great grandson to discharge any such debt.
But if any debt contracted before the commencement this Amending Act of 2005 the right of
any creditor, to proceed against son, grandson or great grandson, shall not affect or any
alienation relating to any such debt or right shall be enforceable under the rule of pious
obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been. enforceable as if
Hindu Succession Amending Act of 2005 had not been enacted. 17 Further for the purpose of
creditors right stated above the expression son, grandson or great grandson shall be deemed
to refer to the son, grandson or great grandson who was born or adopted prior to the
commencement (9th September, 2005) of the Amending Act of 2005. Such provisions shall
not apply to a partition which has been done before 20th December, 2004. Sections 23 and 24
omitted. Likewise special provisions relating to rights in respect of dwelling house and the
disentitlement rights of widow's remarrying, respectively omitted from the Act. The
Amending Act also in the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 added new heirs viz,
son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter
daughter of a predeceased daughter, son of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-
deceased son. Thus the amendment of Hindu Succession Act of 1956 in 2005 is a total
commitment for the women empowerment and protection of women's right to property. This
Amending Act in a partrilineal system, like mitakshara School of Hindu Law opened the door
for the women, to have the birth right in the family property like the son. The women were
vested the right of control and ownership of property beyond their right to sustenance.

17
http://www.indialawjournal.org/archives/volume8/issue-1/article7.html (Last Retrieved 06/03/19, 4:15 PM)
 17

CHAPTER 3: AMENDMENTS TO HINDU SUCCESSION ACT AND

GENDER EQUALITY

The recent legislative proposals amending the Hindu Succession Act are important steps
towards gender equality and abolition of the patrilineal system of inheritance prevailing
among Hindus. These proposals are based on the 174th Report of the Law Commission
published in 2000 and seek to give Hindu women equal rights in the Mitakshara Joint Family
Property. The proposed Bill also seeks to do away with Section 23 of the Hindu Succession
Act which denies a woman the right to seek partition of an inherited unit / house if other male
heirs are residing in it and further restricts her right to reside in the inherited residence unless
18
she is a widow or has been separated from or deserted by her husband.

However, the proposed changes are not comprehensive enough and women will still be
subjected to unequal property rights in agricultural land as Section 4(2) of the Hindu
Succession Act allows for special State laws to address the issue of fragmentation of
agricultural holdings, fixation of ceiling and devolution of tenancy rights in these holdings.
Thus, State laws exist in Delhi, U.P, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, which deny
women equal rights of succession in tenancy rights. Further, certain other Sections of the
Hindu Succession Act discriminate against women through the discriminatory order of
succession for male & female heirs.

The proposed Amendments to the Mitakshara Joint Family Property laws making women
equal coparceners are sought to be made applicable only to women who are not married at the
time the law is passed and is thus patently unjust also. When the Hindu Succession Act was
passed in 1956, the Mitakshara coparcenery system was retained and the then Government
refused to abolish this system of Joint family in spite of contrary recommendations by the
Select Committee and protest by AIWC. Under the Mitakshra System of Joint Family, which
prevails in all parts of India apart from Bengal only males are members (coparceners) of the
Joint Family and the right to inheritance was by way of survivorship and not by way of
succession. The son acquired a right and interest in Joint Family Property on birth while a
woman family member only had a right to maintenance. However the Hindu Succession Act
gave a share to the first class female heirs (daughters and wives) in the share of the father /
husband in the joint family property who died intestate (without making a will). However this
share was not equal to the share, which a son inherited, since the son was deemed to be
18
Satyendu Kundu v. Amar Nath Ghosh, AIR 1964 Cal 52, 57
 18

coparcener (member of the joint family) by birth. For e.g. in a joint family consisting of a
father, a son and a daughter, both the father and the son, according to the Mitakshara
coparcenary system, would be equal owners of the property. Thus when the father died, after
the 1956 Act, his share would devolve equally on both the son and daughter. However the
daughter in this particular case would only get 1/4th share of the property whereas the brother
who was already a co owner would have his half share plus 1/4th share of the property. The
Amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet proposes to make the daughter also a coparcener in
the Joint Family Property. It is pertinent to point out that some states like Karnataka, Andhra
Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamilnadu have already passed laws making the daughter a
member (coparcener) of the joint family while other states like Kerala have completely
abolished the joint family system. This could be done as laws of succession fall in Entry 5 of
the concurrent list of the VIII th Schedule to the Constitution. It is relevant to note that the
Hindu Code Bill, as originally framed by the B.N.Rao committee and piloted by Dr
B.R.Ambedkar, had recommended abolishing the Mitakshara coparcenery with its concept of
survivorship and the son’s right by birth in a joint family system and substitute it with a
principle of inheritance by succession. In fact, AIDWA had also during the Dowry
Prohibition Act amendments in early 1980s, asked for abolition of the Joint family System. In
this sense the Amendment doesn't go far away. The other Amendment, which was cleared by
the Cabinet, was to abolish Section- 23 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. This provision
denies a married daughter the right to residence in an inherited parental home unless she is
widowed, deserted or separated from her husband. The section further denies the daughter,
who has inherited a house along with a male member of a family from asking for her share of
the property if any member of the family resides in the inherited house, until the male heirs
also agreed.19 However, no such restriction has been placed by the Section 23 on a male heir.
Apart from this the proposed amendment seeks to make the new law applicable only to those
women who are not married at the date of the amendment. This provision is based on the
Maharashtra Law and is said to be made on the presumption that women, who are married
have already received their share of property etc. as dowry / gift during their marriage. This is
patently unfair not only because many women may not have received dowry but also because
the amount of dowry received can hardly be equated to equal rights in property. In reality this

19
Narashimaha Murthy v. Susheelabai, (1996) 3 SCC 644, 663
 19

is a devise to restrict the number of women, who inherit and to maintain status quo as far as
possible. 20

Apart from the obvious discrimination in Section 6 and Section 23 discussed above, certain
other sections of Hindu Succession Act also blatantly discriminate against women and require
amendment. The most important section, which has been used to deny property rights to
women in agricultural land, is Section 4 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, which allows for
State legislation to prevail over the Hindu Succession Act. This Section states that the Act
shall not apply to laws, providing for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings
or for fixation of ceilings or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings?.
Judgments under this Section have upheld laws under Section 4 (2) of the Hindu Succession
Act and have mostly denied women equal rights in agricultural land. While some courts have
held that the Hindu Succession Act will apply to agricultural holding, this can only be in the
absence of State laws for the purposes mentioned in Section 4 (2) or if the States laws under
Section 4(2) themselves apply the Hindu Succession Act or personal laws to ?devolution of
tenancy rights?. Courts have upheld the State Land Reform Acts, relating to devolution of
tenancy rights even though these do not allow women to inherit these tenancies. Some courts
have further interpreted the term devolution of tenancy rights broadly and comprehensively
to include devolution of tenure holder's right and have thus also denied women ownership
rights over agricultural land. Thus even laws meant for land reform and to enforce ceiling
have resulted in denying to women equal rights over land and a chance to improve her
disempowered status. Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act allows any Hindu to dispose
off his property including his share in the Joint Family Property by will. As has been pointed
by women's organizations and groups and activists this Section can and has been used to
21
disinherit women. It has been recommended by many that a limitation should be placed on
the right to will. Such a provision exists in Muslim law where a Muslim can only Will away
up to a maximum of -1/3rd of his property. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act which
specifies how the property of a female Hindu will devolve also contains certain
discriminatory provisions. It states that in the absence of class I heirs( son, daughters &
husband) the property of a female Hindu will go to her husband's heirs and only if these heirs
are not then will the property devolve upon her mother and father. However, in the absence of
the mother and father, the property will again devolve upon the heirs of the father and only if

20
https://www.kaanoon.com/54491/hsa-amendment-2005 (Last Retrieved 06/3/19, 9:11 PM)
21
Anjani Kant, Women and the Law, New Delhi , p. 258
 20

there are no heirs of father will the property devolve upon the heirs of the mother. The
proviso to Section-6 of Hindu Succession Act contains another instance of gender bias. The
proviso states that the property of the deceased in the Mitakshara Coparcenary shall devolve
by intestate succession if the deceased had a female heir or a male heir who claims through
such female relative. In order to appreciate the gender bias it is necessary to see the rules of
devolution of interest under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. In this section there are
only four primary heirs in the Schedule to class I, namely, mother, widow, son and daughter.
If, however, for example the son or daughter has already died, their children can inherit the
property. The principle of representation goes up to two degree in the male line of descent;
but in the female line of descent it goes only upto one degree. Accordingly, the deceased
son's son's son and son's son's daughter get a share but a deceased daughter's daughter's son
and daughter's daughter's daughter do not get anything. 22 A further infirmity is that a widow
of a pre-deceased son and grandson are class-I heirs, but the husbands of a deceased daughter
or grand-daughter are not heirs.

22
R. Mahalakshmi v. A.V. Anantharaman and Ors., 2010 1 AWC(Supp)356SC
 21

CHAPTER 4: IMPACT OF 2005 AMENDMENT ON THE HINDU

SUCCESSION ACT

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was seeks to make two major amendments in
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. First, it is proposed to remove the gender discrimination in
section 6 of the original Act. Second, it proposes to omit section 23 of the original Act, which
disentitles a female heir to ask for partition in respect of a dwelling house, wholly occupied
by a joint family, until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein.
However in the instant project we have focused specifically on the changes brought in
Section 6 in regards to the position of woman and has made a clause-by-clause consideration
of the section thus amended.

Out of many significant benefits brought in for women, one of the significant benefit has
been to make women coparcenary (right by birth) in Mitakshara joint family property. Earlier
the female heir only had a deceased man's notional portion. With this amendment, both male
and female will get equal rights. In a major blow to patriarchy, centuries-old customary
Hindu law in the shape of the exclusive male mitakshara coparcenary has been breached
throughout the country. The preferential right by birth of sons in joint family property, with
the offering of "shradha" for the spiritual benefit and solace of ancestors, has for centuries
been considered sacred and inviolate.23 It has also played a major role in the blatant
preference for sons in Indian society. This amendment, in one fell swoop, has made the
daughter a member of the coparcenary and is a significant advancement towards gender
equality. The significant change of making all daughters (including married ones)
coparceners in joint family property - has been of a of great importance for women, both
economically and symbolically. 24 Economically, it can enhance women's security, by giving
them birthrights in property that cannot be willed away by men. In a male-biased society
where wills often disinherit women, this is a substantial gain. Also, as noted, women can
become kartas of the property. Symbolically, all this signals that daughters and sons are
equally important members of the parental family. It undermines the notion that after
marriage the daughter belongs only to her husband's family. If her marriage breaks down, she
can now return to her birth home by right, and not on the sufferance of relatives. This will
enhance her self-confidence and social worth and give her greater bargaining power for

23
Varalakshmi and Anr v. G. Srinivsa Raoand Anr. 2009(6)ALD117(SC)
24
https://www.kaanoon.com/54491/hsa-amendment-2005
 22

herself and her children, in both parental and marital families. Now under the amendment,
daughters will now get a share equal to that of sons at the time of the notional partition, just
before the death of the father, and an equal share of the father's separate share. Equal
distribution of undivided interests in co-parcenery property. However, the position of the
mother vis-à-vis the coparcenary stays the same. 25 She, not being a member of the
coparcenary, will not get a share at the time of the notional partition. The mother will be
entitled to an equal share with other Class I heirs only from the separate share of the father
computed at the time of the notional partition. 26 In effect, the actual share of the mother will
go down, as the separate share of the father will be less as the property will now be equally
divided between father, sons and daughters in the notional partition.

For daughters wanting to claim a share in their ancestral property, they can now do so
regardless of their year of birth. Even children of a pre-deceased daughter can claim a share
in HUF property to the extent it would have devolved upon their mother. However, in
practice, most daughters do not claim a share in their ancestral property and relinquish it in
favour of their brothers, often for little or no compensation. 27 Societal and family pressures
force women to do so, and this is unlikely to change in the medium term across India. Even
awareness or knowledge about their personal wealth and the need for succession planning is
very limited or non-existent, let alone awareness of such nuanced issues on family property.
This reflects a very sorry and sad state of affairs in the Indian male dominated environment.

It is important to note that Section 6 of the HSA applies only to intestate succession (i.e.
default succession under the law), and not to bequests of personal assets through testamentary
instruments (i.e. a Will or Codicil). Families looking to bequeath their assets to specific
persons should do so by way of a professionally drafted Will, which clearly lays out the
manner of bequest. This helps mitigate the risks posed by the change in law and ensure that
the assets do not get locked up in litigation for many years.

Today, women are playing a pivotal role in the business world, far beyond just their family
businesses. Given the evolving nature of inheritance & succession law, they must take steps
to understand their inheritance rights, and do something proactive about it. Women, we

25
Vanitaben v. Divaliben, AIR 1979 Guj 116
26
Urmila Pyne v. Amiya Kumar Pyne, 2 HLR 16
27
http://sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/3186/3186_2013_Judgement_01-Feb-2018.pdf
 23

encourage each of you to think about your succession and legacy very carefully, and to
consider putting in place your Wills at the earliest.28

28
https://privateclient.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2018/03/daughters-born-2005-equal-rights-ancestral-property-
sc/
 24

CHAPTER 5 : EXISTING DISCRIMINATIONS

Despite the numerous amendments and thought out planning, there still persists some
provisions which encourages inequality in the nature of succession of a male and female
coparcener. Some of them are enlisted below :

 Different Rules of Succession: Sections 8 to 13 and 14 to 16 lay down rules regarding

Hindu males and females respectively. The presence of different rules for succession
is in itself a contradiction to equality. However, any injustice meted out as a
consequence of separate rules is a different question. Due to the presence of different
rules following are the provisions which are biased against women:

1. Exclusion of Mother: According to § 15(1) of the Act property of a Hindu female

intestate devolves firstly upon sons, daughters and husband. In case of males mother
of the intestate categorised as Class I heir inherits equally with the children and
husband wife of the deceased son. Presence of children and husband excludes mother
from inheriting property of her daughter.
2. Source of Acquisition: According to § 15(2) in the absence of children or children of
predeceased child, the property would devolve upon her father’s heirs or husband’s
heirs based on the source of acquisition i.e. if the property is acquired from her
parents then the father’s heirs posses the right to inherit the property. Whereas in
males source of acquisition is irrelevant. It is perceived that women have a limited
ownership over her property.

3. Preference to Husband’s Heirs: In case of self acquired property as per § 15(1)(b)puts

heirs of the husband ahead of her father’s heirs as in (1)(d), mother’s heirs as in (1)(e).
There is a possibility that her in-laws might inherit over her own parents. In a recent
judgement Om Prakash v. Radha Charanthe Supreme Court has supported this view.
In this case the wife was thrown out of the matrimonial home after unfortunate death
of her husband by her in-laws. She took up the job as a school teacher and acquired
considerable wealth and stayed along with her parents. Latter she died intestate. Her
mother and her in-laws filed for grant of a succession certificate under § 372 Indian
Succession Act. The Supreme Court held that in case if the intestate women die
issueless, the heirs of her husband are given preference over her parents.
 25

 Discrimination Against Men: Following are the provisions in the Act which
discriminate males:

1. Father is a Class II heir whereas his wife is a Class I heir.

2. Son of predeceased son of a predeceased daughter and son of a predeceased daughter
of a predeceased son are in Class II whereas by virtue of the 2005 amendment
daughter of a predeceased son of a predeceased daughter and daughter of a
predeceased daughter of a predeceased son are elevated to Class I.

Regarding (a) the 204th law commission report recommended that father should be elevated
to Class I as it natural and logical to expect that he should be given the right of inheritance
like a mother.

Regarding (b) the law commission said that there is no rationale for not upgrading the
decedents to Class I as their female counterparts being in the same degree of relationship to
the intestate have been upgraded to Class I.

 Married Daughter’s Place of Residence: Women’s residence after marriage is

assumed to be husband’s home thereby wives of deceased husband can inherit
property. Whereas the husband cannot inherit property in such cases. This is
discriminatory but not perceived as injustice.

 Agnates are given preference over cognates is based on an ancient standards of

propinquity.

It can be concluded that despite the tall promises of bringing about gender equality, the
amendment has failed in achieving its objective.

(Nature of property? Is such discrimination justified?)

A glance at Section 10 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 gives an impression that Class I heirs
are entitled to the property equally.

HSA retains the age old shastric law that women ceases to be member of her parental family
after the marriage and it is the role of the husband to support his wife. Following are few
provisions in the HSA act which reflect this attitude.
 26

This is true in most parts of India, however, it is no longer the reality as increasing number of
women in the modern society get married very late or get divorced, work, manage business
etc. Which is, however, not the only reality.

Women As A Coparcener:
Further Complications: If a Hindu female coparcener dies intestate leaving behind her share
in the coparcenary property, what would be the character given to such share?

Women as Karta of coparcener family :

Prior to 2016, So long as the members of a family remained undivided, the senior member
was entitled to manage the family properties including even charitable property and is
presumed to be the manager until the contrary is shown. The senior most member may give
up his right of management and a junior member may be appointed as manager. 29

While considering an issue as to whether a widow can be Karta of her husband's HUF, the
court held that a widow was capable of becoming the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family,
which consists of herself along with her two minor sons. It is notable that the High Court
observed that there was no legal prevention/ embargo against the mother being the de facto
manager of the HUF. The court reasoned that since in Dayabhaga Law a widow may be a
coparcener then she may even be the Karta of the family particularly if she is the only
member sui juris left in the family. For Mitakshara Law, where along with male coparcener a
female may not be a coparcener because she does not possess the right of survivorship, the
court observed that this right or the status of a coparcener is not a requisite for being the
Karta of a joint Hindu family to which she has been admitted to.30

The Supreme Court also held that a widow cannot be Karta of the HUF, though she can be a
manager/ karta of an HUF for the Income-tax assessment.31

In 2000, the 174th report of the 15th Law Commission recommended many amendments to
correct the discrimination against women, which was the key issue before the commission,
and this was the foundation for the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 turned the daughters of a family, who are
governed by Mitakshara Law, coparceners in the HUF property and further gave them the

29
Narendrakumar J Modi v. CIT 1976 S.C. 1953
30
CIT v Seth Laxmi Narayan Raghunathdas, [1948] 16 ITR 313 (Nag.)
31
CIT v Seth Govindram Sugar Mills, [1965] 57 ITR 510 (SC)
 27

right of survivorship via amended Section 6 (1) (a) and (b) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
This amendment gave them equal rights as the sons.

1. As we know that karta of a Hindu Joint Family is the senior most member of the
family entitled to manage family affairs. He should be coparcener.
2. With the amendment, the next question for consideration is can women be the karta of
a joint family property.
3. Prior to the amendment some courts refused to recognise women to be karta’s because
the head has to be coparceners as women cannot be a coparcener hence they cannot be
karta. However, they are conflicting judgements and opinions by scholars who
referring to ancient Hindu texts demonstrated that women can become kartas of a
joint family. 32
4. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. G. S. Mills, the SC held that widow could not be a
karta of the family. This doesn’t mean that women cannot be the karta of the joint
family.

32
Sujata Sharma v. Mannu Gupta, 2015, Delhi HC.
 28

CONCLUSION

Until the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was amended in 2005, the property rights of sons and
daughters were different. While sons had complete right over their father's property,
daughters enjoyed this right only until they got married. After marriage, a daughter was
supposed to become part of her husband's family.

Under the Hindu law, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is a group comprising more than one
person, all lineal descendants of a common ancestor. An HUF can be formed by people of
Hindu, Jain, Sikh or Buddhist faith.

Earlier, once a daughter was married, she ceased to be part of her father's HUF. Many saw
this as curtailing women's property rights. But on September 9, 2005, the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956, which governs the devolution of property among Hindus, was amended.
According to Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, every daughter, whether married or
unmarried, is considered a member of her father's HUF and can even be appointed as 'karta'
(who manages) of his HUF property. The amendment now grants daughters the same rights,
duties, liabilities and disabilities that were earlier limited to sons.

Earlier, according to the ruling, a daughter can avail of the benefits granted by the
amendment only if her father passed away after September 9, 2005. and the daughter is
eligible to be a co-sharer only if the father and the daughter were alive on September 9, 2005.
However, on February 2, 2018, Supreme Court has made it a general rule that a daughter,
living or dead, on the date of amendment will be entitled to share in father’s property, thus
making her children too to claim this right.

Equal right to be coparceners

A coparcenary comprises the eldest member and three generations of a family. It could earlier
comprise, for instance, a son, a father, a grandfather, and a great grandfather. Now, women of
the family can also be a coparcener.

 Under the coparcenary, the coparceners acquire a right over the coparcenary property
by birth. The coparceners' interest and share in the property keep on fluctuating on the
basis of the number of members according to the birth and death of the members in
the coparcenary.
 29

 Both ancestral and self-acquired property can be a coparcenary property. While in

case of ancestral property, it is equally shared by all members of the coparcenary, in
case of self-acquired, the person is free to manage the property according to his own
will.

 A member of the coparcenary can also sell his or her share in the coparcenary to a
third party. However, such a sale is subject to the Right of Pre-emption of the
remaining members of the coparcenary. The remaining members, however, have the
“right of first refusal” over the property, to stop the entry of an outsider.

 A coparcener (not any member) can file a suit demanding partition of the coparcenary
property but not a member. Thus, the daughter, as a coparcener, can now demand the
partition of her father's property.

The Preamble to the Amending Acts indicates the objective as the removal of discrimination
against daughters inherent in the mitakshara coparcenary and thereby eradication of the
baneful system of dowry by positive measures thus ameliorating the condition of women in
the human society. It is necessary to understand that if equality exists only as a phenomenon
outside the awareness and approval of the majority of the people, it cannot be realized by a
section of women socialized in traditions of inequality. Thus there is need to social awareness
and to educate people to change their attitude towards the concept of gender equality. The
need of the hour is also to focus attention on changing the social attitudes in favour of
equality for all by enacting a uniform law. The difficult question of implementing the 2005
Act remains. Campaigns for legal literacy; efforts to enhance social awareness of the
advantages to the whole family if women own property; and legal and social aid for women
seeking to assert their rights, are only a few of the many steps needed to fulfill the change
incorporated in the Act. Empowerment of women, leading to an equal social status in society
hinges, among other things, on their right to hold and inherit property. Several legal reforms
have taken place since independence in India, including on equal share of daughters to
property. Yet equal status remains illusive. Establishment of laws and bringing practices in
conformity thereto is necessarily a long drawn out process. The government, the legislature,
the judiciary, the media and civil society has to perform their roles, each in their own areas of
competence and in a concerted manner for the process to be speedy and effective. These
amendments can empower women both economically and socially. and have far-reaching
benefits for the family and society. Independent access to agricultural land can reduce a
 30

woman and her family's risk of poverty, improve her livelihood options, and enhance
prospects of child survival, education and health. Women owning land or a house also face
less risk of spousal violence. And land in women's names can increase productivity by
improving credit and input access for numerous de facto female household heads. Making all
daughters coparceners like wise has far-reaching implications. It gives women birthrights in
joint family property that cannot be willed away. Rights in coparcenary property and the
dwelling house will also provide social protection to women facing spousal violence or
marital breakdown, by giving them a potential shelter. Millions of women - as widows and
daughters - and their families thus stand to gain by these amendments.
 31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Statutes Referred :
1. Hindu Law of Inheritence Act, 1929
2. Hindu Women’s right to property act, 1937
3. Hindu Succession Act, 1956
4. Hindu Succession 2005 (Amendment) Act.
 Books Referred :
1. Lexis Nexis, Justice K. Kannan Paruk, The Indian Succession Act, IV Ed.
2. Lexis Nexis, Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Laws, III Ed.
 Websited referred :
1. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/historical-background-of-gender-equality-
and-succession-right-of-hinduwomens-right-of-property/
2. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/indian-law/gender-justice-in-hindu-
succession-laws.php
3. https://www.livelaw.in/daughters-equal-rights-ancestral-property-even-born-
enactment-hindu-succession-act-holds-supreme-court-read-judgment/
4. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2912662
5. https://housing.com/news/these-are-the-property-rights-of-a-daughter-in-a-hindu-
family/
6. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/married-daughter-rights-fathers-property-cs-
subhash-jha-llb-