General Rules of Succession Under Codified

Hindu Law

LIST OF CASES

 Aruna v. Madhava, 2005 Kant. 422.

 Aushutosh Chaturvedi v. Prano Devi, 2008 S.C. 2171.
 Chamanlal v. Mohanlal, 1977 Del. 97.
 Girija Singh v. Gyanwati Devi, 2001 Pat. 20.
 Kamak Goel v. Purshottam Das, 1999 P&H 254.
 Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Div. Commr., 1976 S.C. 2595.
 Kenchava v. Girimallappa (1924) 51 IA 368.
 Madambath Rohini v. Devi, AIR 2002 Ker. 192.
 Vidya v Nand Ram 2001 10 SCC 747.

1|Page
 CONTENTS
Introduction
General rules of Succession
General provisions
Conclusion
Bibliography

2|Page
INTRODUCTION
There are specific legal provisions in relation to the succession i.e. section 18 to 28 of Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. These legal provisions apply to all the situations either property belongs to
a Hindu male or female. Following provisions are supplementary to the section 5 to 17 of the act.
Some of the legal provisions also involve the legal principles.

HISTORY- Before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Hindus were regulated by Classic Hindu
law.1 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is the codification of the Hindu law of intestate succession and
came into operation on 17 June 1956. It acquainted key changes with great Hindu law of intestate
succession. The act is the codification of the Hindu law of Succession. It rolls out arrangement for
specific improvements to the classic Hindu law of succession, and in spite of the fact that it is
basically a codification of the Mitakshara law of succession, it is uniformly applicable to every
school of Hindu law in India.

In classic Hindu law there are two modes of devolution, one is survivorship of coparcenary
property, and succession of separate property. Males are allowed to have a share in coparcenary
property. If the male coparcener dies, then his share of property goes back to the remaining
coparcenary property. The wife or other female heirs of deceased coparcener have no right to the
property.

Before the 2005 amendment, section 6 of the act bring the revolutionary change to the Hindu law
of succession by allowing the female heir, and the son of a daughter of deceased Hindu, a share in
the coparcenary property. If a coparcener dies leaving with a female heir, his share will devolve
by mode of succession. The share will be calculated by taking consideration of deceased share
immediately before the time of his death. But by the amendment the section changes and now
section 6 says that a daughter in the coparcener in a joint Hindu family becomes a coparcener in
her own right. Now a female has equal rights and responsibilities in the property and is allotted the
same share as a son.

1
Mulla’s principles of Hindu law vol I (19ed 2005) 101–363 and C Rautenbach ‘Hindu law of succession’(2ed
2006) 269–287.

3|Page
The nullification of the constrained woman's estate was the second most vital advance into the
classic Hindu law of succession. In terms of classic Hindu law, if a female inherited property from
a male or stridhana from another female, she received only a limited woman’s estate which meant
that she was the owner of the property for as long as she lived, but although she had full and
exclusive ownership of the property during that time, her ownership was restricted in all other
respects. Section 14(1) of the Act abolished the limited woman’s estate and converted existing
limited woman’s estates into full estates.2If a female acquires property in any way whatsoever, she
becomes the full owner of such property without any limitations. Furthermore, section 14(1) is
retroactive and applies to limited woman’s estates and property acquired before the
commencement of the Act. Section 15 of the act abolishes the various classifications of stridhana
under the Classic Hindu law.

Section 23 used to constrain the privilege of a female in regards to the residence to one side of
living arrangement as it were. Although female beneficiaries got to be proprietors of the home
house left by the deceased in equivalent shares with the male recipients, they were not permitted
to have the house divided. Such a privilege was just accessible to the male beneficiaries.3 The
reason for section 23 was to ensure the privileges of the son of the perished who act as the suppliers
of the joint family, and who depend to their right to live with their families in the residence house.
On the off chance that a female had the privilege to claim portion of the house, it could be
problematic to the families living in it. Such a contention can similarly be connected to one side
of the male beneficiaries of the perished. They have the privilege to claim partition paying little
mind to whether such segment would be troublesome to the female recipients having a partake in
the residence house. Section 23 was canceled by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005
and it is these days workable for a female to claim partition of the residence house.

2
Vidya v Nand Ram 2001 10 SCC 747.
3
S Yadav ‘Women, Law and Judiciary in India’ in Sharma (ed) Justice and social order in India (1994) 309.

4|Page
GENERAL RULES OF SUCCESSION

General rules of succession to the property of a Hindu male- Under the classic old
Hindu law the succession of the Hindu male and a female was separately dealt and this continues
with the, The Hindu Succession Act, 1856. There are four types of Hindu heirs- Class I, Class II,
agnates and cognates. The persons included in these categories are mentioned in the Schedule to
the Act.

Section 8 it dealt with the order of priority among classes of heirs by laying down that the
property will first go to the Class I heirs and then to Class II heirs, failing which to agnates and
thereafter to cognates.

Section 9 lays down that Class I heirs are simultaneous heirs, i.e., no one excludes the other, all
take simultaneously in accordance with the rules of distribution of property among them, while
Class II heirs, who are listed in nine categories in the Schedule, the heirs in the previous category
are preferred to later categories.

Section 10 it defines the property distribution among Class I heirs. Section 11 define rules of
distribution of property between Class II heirs. Section 12 lays down that agnates, however remote,
will always be preferred over a cognate, however proximate. Section 13 provides the modes of
computation of degrees among the agnates and cognates for the purpose of determining their order
of succession.

This is a divergence from classical Hindu law, where all the coparceners succeeded to the property
of the deceased and all other relations, however proximate and all the legal heirs of the deceased
were excluded.

General Rules of succession in the case of females- Law before the Act, the succession
to a female’s property differed according as the property was her Stridhan technically so called, or
was acquired by her by inheritance or by partition, etc. If it was the former, it went to her heirs and
if it was the later, it went to the heirs of a person from whom she had inherited it from whose share
it was taken out on partition, etc. It also varied according as she was married or unmarried, and

5|Page
according as she- was married in a valid or invalid form. The rules of descent again were different
in different schools. This Act ignores all such qualifications for the succession to female’s property
and provides a uniform law for all Hindu females, married or unmarried, belonging to one school
or another.

The act by section 14 confers absolute ownership on all females in respect of all properties in

their possession, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act. And section 15
lays down the rules for the devolution of such property on the death of the female in the event she
has not made a testamentary disposition of the same under section 30.

Devolution of property:

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 predeceased 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.

The property which belong to the female Hindu and question arise what happen to the property
after the death of the female. sub-section (2) makes a very clear and important exception in respect
of such property.

It provides that where a female Hindu had inherited property from her father or mother and she
died leaving behind neither son nor grandchildren, however she may have deserted her husband
the property would not go to her husband but rather return to the heirs of the father. Similarly, any
property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law would decline in
the absence of any kids or grandchildren of the deceased, upon the heirs of the husband. As to
will's identity the heirs in such cases, will be determined in understanding with Rule 3 set down in
section 16, which provides that the property would revert in the same request and according to the

6|Page
same rules as would have connected if the property had been the father's or the husband's as the
case might be, and such person had passed on intestate in respect thereof immediately after
intestate's death.

In view of the provisions to the definition of “related” in section 3 (j). It shows that the heirs of a
female Hindu will include her illegitimate children born from another husband also. Thus, it
appears that in case a female Hindu, who had inherited property from her husband, dies intestate
and leaves behind children from her previous husband, such children along with the children of
the second husband will succeed equally to her. Reference may also be made to the general
provisions relating to order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female
provided for in section 16. Besides the above order of devolution,, other rules of succession are
that all the heirs of any one of the above classes will take the property simultaneously4, per stripes
and as tenant-in-common and where an intestate leaves the children from a predeceased son or
daughter of her, the children of each predeceased son of a daugh-ter will take between them such
share which they said predeceased son or daughter would have inherited had he or she been alive
at the time of the intestate’s death.5

On account of a property held by the intestate by inheritance it will decline on the heirs of a person
from whom she had inherited that property in such a way as though the devolution is to occur of
the property of that person and that person had died instantly on the death of the intestate. A similar
principle will apply to the cases where property other than inherited property is to revert and the
heirs are of classes (b), (d) and (e) mentioned above, that is they are the heirs of the husband, the
father or the mother. In these cases, the property will decline upon the heirs of the husband, the
father or the mother in a similar way, as though property lapsing is the property of the said husband,
the father or the mother, all things considered, and the husband, the father or the mother had died
promptly after the death of the intestate. 6

This principle of property inherited by a female lapsing on her death on the heirs of the person
from whom she had inherited is administered by the devolution of inherited property of a female
under the first Hindu Law moreover. Therefore, while the Act tries to change the law of devolution

4
Sec. 16, rule 1.
5
Sec. 16, rule 2.
6
Sec. 16, rule 3.

7|Page
in regard of all property go by a female it keeps up that with respect to property gained by her by
legacy. Another essential point important is that not at all like the textual law without the son or
daughters and the husband, the heirs of the husband have been offered inclination to the mother,
the father and their heirs; and along these lines, the odds of a property controlled by a female,
being lost to the family to which she comes to have a place after her marriage, have been expelled.

GENERAL PROVISIONS IN RELATION TO SUCCESSION

There are certain general provisions identifying with the succession, as set down from section 18
to 28 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. These provisions apply to every one of the properties
independent of the fact whether it is left by a male or a female Hindu dying intestate. Section 18
discusses half blood and full blood relations and succession among them, while section 19 manages
per stripes and per capita rules. Section 20 is about succession with respect to posthumous child.
Section 21 and 22, manage assumption in instances of simultaneous death and preferential right or
right of preemption individually. Concept of Escheat, wherein absence of any legal heirs, property
goes to the government and different rules till section 28 of the demonstration are explicitly
managed under the part of general rules of succession. In addition, the provisions are logical as
well as some of them set down substantive rules including legal principles.

Section 18 sets out a lead of general applicability to male and female heirs alike yet the
applicability is liable to the words, "if the way of the relationship is the same in each other regard."
From the arrangements of the section obviously a full-blood relation is wanted to half-blood
relation. Be that as it may, the run can't be invoked when a specific beneficiary is wanted to another
by operation of any manage influencing the order of succession.

Full blood preferred to half blood- Section 18 states that, “Heirs related to an intestate by
full- blood shall be preferred to heirs related by half-blood, if the nature of the relationship is same
in every other respect.”

Section 18 sets out a lead of general applicability to male and female heirs alike yet the
applicability is liable to the words, "if the way of the relationship is the same in each other regard."
From the arrangements of the section obviously a full-blood relation is liked to half-blood relation.

8|Page
Be that as it may, the lead can't be invoked when a specific beneficiary is wanted to another by
operation of any manage influencing the order of succession.

The words 'full-blood' and 'half-blood' have been explained in section 2 (e) of the Act. Two people
are said to be identified with each other by full blood when they are plummeted from a common
ancestor by a similar wife, and by half-blood when they are slid from a common ancestor yet by
various wives.

Section 18 makes it clear that the heirs related by full-blood might be wanted to heirs related by
half-blood, gave the way of relationship is same in each other regard. Thus, the full sister’s
daughter shall be preferred to half-brother’s son. Similarly, a full sister excludes a half-sister.

Mode of succession to two or more heirs- Section 19 of the act provides that, “If two or
more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate they shall take the property—

(a) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, per capita and not per stripes; and
(b) As tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.

The section sets out a general rule of distribution of the property. It says that when at least two
heirs succeed to the property of an intestate, they take the property per capita and as inhabitants in
like manner unless there is an express arrangement actually. Occurrences of special cases to the
general rule about distribution per capita are set down under Rules 1, 3 and 4 of section 10 and
Rule 2 of section 16, and so forth.

Joint tenancy and tenancy in common- Joint tenancy is the ownership of property in
common by several persons having a right of survivorship. On the death of one of the joint tenants,
the property vests in the survivor or survivors to the exclusion of the heirs of the deceased joint
tenant. The tenancy in common arises where two or more persons are entitled to property in such
manner that they have an undivided possession but distinct estate in equal or unequal shares either
by the same or different title. No one of them is entitled to the exclusive possession of any part of
the property, each being entitled to whole in common with the others. On the death of any of them,
his heirs succeed to the property left by the deceased. In short, joint tenancy means joint ownership
with the right of survivorship, and tenancy-in-common means joint possession with separate
ownership without the right of survivorship.

9|Page
The section lays down a presumption in case of simultaneous deaths that the younger person
survived the older, until the contrary is proved. This operates only in cases where persons die in
circumstances rendering it uncertain as to who died first. 7

Right of child in womb- Section 20 provides that, “a child who was in the womb at the time
of the death of an intestate and who is subsequently born alive shall have the same right to inherit
to the intestate as if he or she had been born before the death of the intestate, and the inheritance
shall be deemed to vest in such a case with effect from the date of the death of the intestate.”

A child in the mother’s womb is presumed to be born before the death of the intestate, although
subsequently born. To quote Mulla, “It is by fiction or indulgence of the law that the rights of a
child born in justo matrimonio are regarded by reference to the moment of conception and not of
birth and the unborn child in the womb, if born alive is treated as actually born for the purpose of
conferring on him benefits of inheritance. The child in embryo is treated as in esse for various
purposes when it is for his benefit to be so treated. The view is not peculiar to the ancient Hindu
Law but one which as adopted by all mature systems of jurisprudence. This section recognizes that
rule of beneficient indulgence and the child in utero although subsequently born is to be deemed
to be born before the death of the intestate and inheritance is to be deemed to vest in the child with
effect from the date of the death of the intestate.”8 But for the purposes of the application of the
provisions of section 20, it is essential that child must be in womb at the time of the death of the
propositus and the child must be born alive.

Presumption in cases of simultaneous death- Section 21 provides that, “Where two

persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain whether either of them, and if so which,
survived the other, then, for all purposes affecting succession to property, it shall be presumed,
until the contrary is proved, that the younger survived the elder.”

Sometimes it may happen when two person die in an accident and then it is impossible to ascertain
which of them died first. In such situations it may be presumed that both died simultaneously or
one died earlier. Controversy regarding inheritance in such a situation can be arises as who will
succeed whose property. Before the enactment of the said section there was no answer to such

7
Madambath Rohini v. Devi, AIR 2002 Ker. 192.
8
Mulla, D.F., Principles of Hindu Law, Ed. XVI (reprint, 1994) p. 841.

10 | P a g e
situation. The burden of proof falls on the party who asserted affirmative. 9 If the evidence in the
court are proved then the probabilities of decision is in the favor of the younger.10

In this section the presumption of survivorship applies, by which the younger is presumed to
survived the older. In this Section, ‘younger’ means younger in status not in age and only when
the status is the same, younger in age. Thus if an uncle aged thirty years and a nephew aged thirty-
five years, die in a plane crash or a ship wreck, it will be presumed that the nephew died later, even
though he is older in terms of actual age. On the other hand, if two brother die simultaneously in
any accident or calamity, the brother younger in age is presumed to have died later.

This is a peculiar feature of this Act, as it was altogether not provided for at all in the classical
law or the previous legislations regarding Hindu succession.

Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases-

Section 22 provides a preferential right to other heir or heirs to acquire property when one of them
desires to transfer his or her interest in the property inherited. Section 22 runs as follows:

(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an interest in any immovable property of an
intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, whether solely or in conjunction with others,
devolves upon two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs
proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a
preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred.

(2) The consideration for which any interest in the property of the deceased may be transferred
under this section shall, in the absence of any agreement between the parties, be determined by the
court on application being made to it in this behalf, and if any person proposing to acquire the
interest is not willing to acquire it for the consideration so determined, such person shall be liable
to pay all costs of or incident to the application.

(3) If there are two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule proposing to acquire any
interest under this section, that heir who offers the highest consideration for the transfer shall be
preferred.

9
Digendra Kumar Roy v. Kuti Mian, AIR 1944 Cal 132.
10
Yeknath v. Lakshmibai, AIR 1922 Bom 347.

11 | P a g e
In this section," court" means the court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable
property is situate or the business is carried on, and includes any other court which the State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

Section 22 recognises the rules of pre-emption which has the tendency to raise clogs on the full
sale and purchase of property. But the rule of preferential right to acquire property or business in
certain cases is subject to certain rules laid down under this section. The provisions of the section
were necessary in order to safeguard the interests of the co-heirs, otherwise the very foundations
of the Hindu family would have been shattered. The preferential right to acquire property in certain
cases as is provided under this section is limited only to those cases where the property has
devolved upon two or more heirs specified in class I of the schedule.

The preferential right can be claimed within 1 year of alienation and not after 13 years.11 The right
of co-heir to seek transfer of property proposed to be sold is only a personal right which is neither
transferable nor heritable.12 By exercising the preferential right to purchase the share of a co-heir
in the business or estate, the strangers can be prevented from stepping into the joint business or
estate.

Section 23 Has Been Deleted from The Act by Virtue of Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005.

Section 23 used to limit the right of a female regarding the dwelling house to a right of residence
only. Although female beneficiaries became owners of the dwelling house left by the deceased in
equal shares with the male beneficiaries, they were not allowed to have the house partitioned. Such
a right was only available to the male beneficiaries.13 The purpose of section 23 was to protect the
rights of the sons of the deceased who act as the providers of the joint family, and who rely on
their right to reside with their families in the dwelling house. If a female had the right to claim
partition of the dwelling house, it could be disruptive to the families living in it. Such an argument
can equally be applied to the right of the male beneficiaries of the deceased. They have the right
to claim partition regardless of whether such partition would be disruptive to the female
beneficiaries having a share in the dwelling house. Section 23 was repealed by the Hindu

11
Aushutosh Chaturvedi v. Prano Devi, 2008 S.C. 2171.
12
Kamak Goel v. Purshottam Das, 1999 P&H 254.
13
S Yadav ‘Women, Law and Judiciary in India’ in Sharma (ed) Justice and social order in India (1994) 309.

12 | P a g e
Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 and it is nowadays possible for a female to claim partition
of the dwelling house.

Section 24 repealed: Certain widows remarrying may not inherit as a widow –

In classical Hindu law, certain female heirs if they had remarried after the death of their spouses,
before the succession opened were disqualified from inheriting the property of the deceased
intestate, for being unfaithful to their obligations widows. Under the Hindu Widow Remarriage
Act, 1956, if a Hindu widow remarried, she could not inherit the property of her deceased husband.
Under this Section of the Act, only three female heirs were disqualified on such grounds, namely:

 Son’s widow
 Son’s son’s widow
 Brother’s widow

Now, this Section has been omitted14, rendering such disqualification null and void, which is a
great diversion from Hindu traditional law.

Murderer disqualified- section 25 says that, A person who commits murder or abets the
commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered,
or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the
commission of the murder.

It is a general policy of practically in all the system of law that no one should be allowed to reap
benefits of his crime. Such provisions however, was not specifically provided for traditional Hindu
law. In dayabhaga school it was leads to disqualification, but not same in the Mitakshara school.
However only murderer was disqualified from the dayabhaga school not the abettor of murder.
But the said section disqualifies both the murderer and the abettor. The Joint Select Committee on
the Hindu Succession Bill observed:

“A murderer even if not disqualified under the traditional Hindu law from succeeding to the estate
of the person whom he has murdered is so disqualified upon the principles of justice, equity and
good conscience.”

14
Omiitted by Section 5, Act 39 of 2005.

13 | P a g e
In the case of Kenchava v. Girimallappa,15 the Privy Council held that “the murderer is not to be
regarded as the stock for a fresh line of descent but should be regarded as non- existent.”

Under section 25 the murderer as well as the abettor of murder is disqualified. But if he is acquitted
on the basis of benefit of doubt, the disqualification does not attach to him.16

Convert’s descendants disqualified- Section 26 says that, Where, before or after the
commencement of this Act, a Hindu has ceased or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another
religion, children born to him or her after such conversion and their descendants shall be
disqualified from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives, unless such children or
descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens.

Under the old Hindu law, conversion of any Hindu person into another religion was a
disqualification which was later removed by the Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850 and
upheld by this Act. However, although conversion does not disqualify a person form succeeding
to the property of an intestate under this Act, his descendants are disqualified from inheriting such
property unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens.17

Thus, the children of a convert and their descendants are disqualified. But if at the time of death
of the intestate, any of them are Hindu, they are no longer disqualified.

Effect of Disqualifications—Section 27-If any person is disqualified from inheriting any

property under this Act, it shall devolve as if such person had died before the intestate.

This means that no title or right to succeed can be traced through the disqualified person. As the
disqualified person is deemed to have died before intestate, it follows that no person can claim a
right of inheritance to such property, through him or her. For, this can only happen if the property
had vested in the disqualified person, and he or she had thereafter immediately died. The property,
in fact, never vests in the disqualified person. Therefore, a disqualified person cannot be a fresh
stock of descent and a person claiming as an heir of the disqualified person cannot inherit.

15
(1924) 51 IA 368.
16
Chamanlal v. Mohanlal, 1977 Del. 97.
17
S.26, Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

14 | P a g e
Disease, defect, etc. not to disqualify –
Disease, deformity and unchastity are no longer disqualifications.18 Section 28 runs:

“No person shall be disqualified from succeeding to any property on the ground of any disease,
defect or deformity, or save as provided in this Act, on any other ground whatsoever.”

Under the old Hindu law dome diseases, deformities and unchastity were disqualifications of heirs,
though they were not the same in both Dayabhaga and Mitakshara law. According to the
Mitakshara law, some disqualifications were: congenial lunacy or idiocy, adoption of a religious
order (i.e. taking a sanyas) and unchastity of widows. According to the Dayabhaga law, the
disqualifications were: blindness, deafness, dumbness, want of any limb or organ since birth,
idiocy, lunacy, unchastity of widows and, any virulent and incurable form of leprosy rendering
one unfit for intercourse.

The widowed mother and widowed stepmother are not disqualified from inheritance even if they
have remarried.19 If she has remarried during the lifetime of her husband, her second marriage is
void and therefore she would not be considered to have remarried. If she has remarried after
divorcing her husband, and therefore has ceased to be his wife so, she will not be his widow when
propositus dies. But the subsequent marriage of the widow is no disqualification.20

18
Girija Singh v. Gyanwati Devi, 2001 Pat. 20.
19
Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Div. Commr., 1976 S.C. 2595.
20
Aruna v. Madhava, 2005 Kant. 422.

15 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
On 17 June 1956, the most important law regarding the Hindu succession came into operation as
‘The Hindu Succession Act, 1956’. It was clearly different with the many classic Hindu laws but
not free of discrimination. The fact that there are two different schemes of succession for males
and females may be seen as unequal treatment. In terms of the schedule to the Act, the mother of
the deceased is a Class I heir and the father a Class II heir. The result is that the father of the
deceased only inherits if there are no Class I heirs. This may also be seen as discriminatory.

Before 1956, many disqualifications were recognized which prevented heir from inheriting
property. Not only disqualifying the heir from the property but also disqualified his/her heirs from
the property. Before 1956, the classic Hindu law of succession are different for Dayabhaga and
Mitakshara schools. Some of the rules are common between them.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has clearly simplified the law in the easy form and reduces the
disqualifications to the minimum.

However, Hindu succession Act focusses on the rights and issues of the female heirs in the family.
Section 23 which stops female heir to claim partition in the house was repealed by the amendment
in 2005. It also simplifies the rules regarding the succession among the Hindus, but there are many
more scope to settle the disqualifies among the heirs. The women in India not properly known
their rights to the succession, there is a urgent need for proper propagation and popularization of
their rights so that they can be used effectively for the benefits of the females.

16 | P a g e
BIBIOGRAPHY

 Paras Diwan, Law of Intestate and Testamentary Succession, (3rd ed.,

Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 2006)
 Dr. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures, Family Law II 10 (3rd
ed, LexisNexis 2011).
 Flavia Agnes, Family Law and Constitutional Claims (Vol. I Oxford
University Press 2011)
 Brian H. Bix, Family Law, (Oxford university Press, New York, 2013).

17 | P a g e