UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY

INTERNAL PROJECT OF FAMILY LAW II

ON
“ASSESSMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF PARTITION OF SON VIS-A VIS THAT OF
FEMALE IN A JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTY WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON
DAUGHTERS.”

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. SHIVANI GOSWAMI KUNISHKA SHARMA,

02516503520

(BBALLB, 4TH
SEMESTER)
 INDEX

S. NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY 3
3. ESSENTIALS OF A VALID PARTITION 4
4. COPARCENERY AND COPARCENERS IN 5
JOINT HINDU FAMILY
5. COPARCENARY UNDER MITAKSHARA 6
AND DAYABHAGA SCHOOL OF HINDU
LAW
6. MODES OF PARTITION 7
7. RIGHTS OF SONS TO PARTITION 8
8. RIGHT OF FEMALE MEMBERS TO THE 9
PARTITION
9. DAUGHTER’S RIGHT IN HINDU 10
UNDIVIDED JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY

10. TWO KINDS OF FEMALE PROPERTY 11

BEFORE 1956
11. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 12
12. THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) 14
ACT, 2005
13. VINEETA SHARMA V. RAKESH SHARMA: 15
CLEARING THE LAST HURDLE TOWARDS
GENDER EQUALITY IN HINDU PROPERTY
LAW
14. MARRIED DAUGHTER’S RIGHT TO 16
PROPERTY UNDER HINDU SUCCESSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

15. CONCLUSION 16

2|Page
 ASSESSMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF PARTITION OF SON VIS-A VIS THAT OF
FEMALE IN A JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTY WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON
DAUGHTERS.

INTRODUCTION

The division of property into two parts is known as partition. Under the Hindu law,
partition means a division of property of a Joint Hindu family in order to give separate
conferment of status on the undivided coparceners. It is pertinent to note that no
partition is possible if there is only a single coparcener in a Joint family. A coparcener
is a person who inherits estate as cohier with others.  

A partition can be possible on the property which is capable of being partitioned. If at

all there is a separate property of any of the coparceners in the Joint family, it cannot
be subjected to partition. In the case of Mrutunjay Mohapatra v. Prana Krushna
Mohapatra1, the Court stated that when the elder brother had purchased the property
from his persona funds it cannot be subjected to partition and included in the Joint
Family at the instance of a younger brother.

Moreover, in the case of Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra v. Joy Kanta Krushna

Mohapatra2 the court stated that when the property belongs to the paternal uncle and
there is no substantial evidence about the share of the property of claimant’s father, it
would be considered as separate property and not a property of Joint Hindy family.

JOINT HINDU FAMILY

1. The Joint Hindu Family is necessarily the first step towards explaining and
understanding the status of every member in a partition. A joint hindu family operates
like an organisation of closely related members which are not just related by social
bonding but also by blood, that is, the principle of propinquity. Joint family, however,
does not mean a large number of people closely related cohabiting together and under
the same shelter. The philosophy behind joint hindu family is not just legal but also
has a religious aspect as the origination and genus of the family is found in ancient

1
Mrutunjay Mohapatra v. Prana Krushna, AIR 1969 SC 1076
2
Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra v. Joy Kanta Krushna Mohapatra, AIR 1994 Ori 173.

3|Page
 manuscripts and inscriptions. But with the arrival of new age, one could not just rely
on the antique guidance these documents offer, rather there has to be a modern touch
mixed with the guidance of law.
2. The Courts in India have on several occasions explained different aspects of the Joint
Hindu Family. In Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash3, the Court held that, A Joint Hindu
Family consist of all persons lineally descended from the common ancestor, including
their wives and unmarried daughters. Generally, A joint Hindu family is one in
worship and holds joint assets. After separation of assets, the family ceases to be joint.
Mere severance in food and worship is not treated as a separation. In Surjit Lal
Chabbda v. Commr. of Income Tax 4, it explained that, the thread that knits all
members of a family together to form a joint and undivided Hindu family is
sapindaship. In State Bank v. Ghamandi Ram 5, the Court held that, A joint family
may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members. This
body is purely a creature of law and cannot be created by an act of parties.
3. Thus, in order to form a Joint Hindu Family, there must be a common ancestor and his
three lineal male descendents and wife or wives and unmarried daughters. As per
ancient Hindu Law, every Hindu family is presumed to be joint. However, joint
family does not come to an end after death of the common ancestor, but the upper
links are removed and lower links are added, that is, when a common ancestor dies,
the new joint family would now include, along with previously placed son, grandson,
great-grandson, the great-great-grandson. Joint Hindu family is not a juristic entity.
Head of the joint family is called a Karta. Whereas a Hindu undivided family is
slightly different than Joint family since it is a term mostly used for tax and revenue
purpose. It differs mostly in the respect of the constitution of coparcenary.

ESSENTIALS OF A VALID PARTITION

It is pertinent to note that a coparcener reserves a right to demand partition at any time
without the consent of the other coparceners. Therefore, in order to bring demand for
partition the following essentials must be established: -

1. There must be an intention to separate from the Joint Family.

3
Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash (1988) 2 SCC 77
4
Surjit Lal Chabbda v. Commr. of Income Tax 1976 AIR 109
5
State Bank v. Ghamandi Ram (1969) 2 SCC 33

4|Page
 2. There must be a clear, unequivocal and unilateral declaration which conveys the
intention to separate from the Joint Family.
3. The intention must be communicated to the Karta or to the other coparcener in his
absence.

COPARCENERY AND COPARCENERS IN JOINT HINDU FAMILY

1. The next step to understand the objective of this project is to know about coparcenary.
A coparcenary could be taken as a mini group of male members of the joint family
(which includes daughters now). In this group, the members acquire rights in the joint
family property, which is also known as coparcenary property, by birth. However,
until a partition takes place, no definite share is allotted to any one member of the
coparcenary. But, every member has an equal claim on the property. Thus, the
striking feature of coparcenary is, community of interest and unity in possession.
2. The Courts in India, especially the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has, in various of
its pronouncements. In State of Mahrashtra v. Narayan Rao Shyam Rao Deshmukh,6,
the Court held that, a Hindu coparcenary is a narrower body than the joint family.
Only males who acquire by birth an interest in the joint family property can be
members of the coparcenary or coparceners. A male member of a joint family and his
sons, grandsons and great grandsons constitute a coparcenary. While in Rohit
Chauhan v. Surinder Singh7, the Court explained that a coparcenary property means
the property which consists of ancestral property and a coparcener would mean a
person who shares equally with others in inheritance in the estate of common
ancestor.
3. In Controller of Estate Duty v. Alladi Kuppuswamy 8, the court explained in detail that,
Hindu coparcenary has six essential characteristics, namely, (1) that the lineal male
descendants up to the third generation acquire an independent right of ownership by
birth and not as representing their ancestors; (2) that the members of the coparcenary
have the right to work out their rights by demanding partition; (3) that until partition,
each member has got ownership extending over the entire property conjointly with the
rest and so long as no partition takes place, it is difficult for any coparcener to
6
Mahrashtra v. Narayan Rao Shyam Rao Deshmukh, (1985) 2 SCC 321
7
Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 419
8
Controller of Estate Duty v. Alladi Kuppuswamy (1977) 3 SCC 385

5|Page
 predicate the share which he might receive; (4) that as a result of such co-ownership
the possession and enjoyment of the property is common; (5) that there can be no
alienation of the property without the concurrence of the other coparceners unless it
be for legal necessity; and (6) that the interest of a deceased member lapses on his
death and merges in the coparcenary property.
4. In Bhagwan v. Reoti9, the Court defined coparcenary to effect the definition that
“Coparcenary is a creature of Hindu law and cannot be created by agreement of
parties except in the case of reunion. It is a corporate body or a family unit. The law
also recognizes a branch of the family as a subordinate corporate body.” In
Coparcenary, the rule is that so long as one is not removed by more than four degrees
from the last holder of the property, howsoever removed one may be from the original
holder, one will be a coparcener. But, if one is removed by more than four degrees,
one will not be a coparcener.

COPARCENARY UNDER MITAKSHARA AND DAYABHAGA SCHOOL OF

HINDU LAW

1. Under the Hindu Law, there are schools of philosophy and thought. These are
Mitakshara and Dayabhaga School where there are differences with respect to some
aspects of Joint Hindu Family, including Coparcenary. The philosophy under both
these schools comes to guide actions when there is no codified Hindu law or there is
no codified Hindu law speaking upon a subject. However, these differences are not so
glaring or big and not that much complex and complicated. Ordinarily, these two
schools different with respect to the philosophy of succession and joint hindu family
property. The later, is also called the coparcenary property and thus, is our prime
focus under this head.
2. Mitakshara School - The Coparcenary under this School does not give the coparceners
a fixed share before partition and the share of every member is fluctuating and
extends to the entire estate equally. There is a community of possession and unity of
interest. Under this school, the doctrine of birthright by son is followed and the
inheritance of the joint hindu family property goes to a group known as coparcenary.
So, a son and a father have effectively an equal share in the property.
3. Dayabhaga School - The Coparcenary under this School gives the coparceners of the
respective Joint Hindu Family a fixed share in the property even before partition.
9
Bhagwan v. Reoti 1962 SC 287

6|Page
 Under this school, the coparcenary or joint hindu family property devolves by
inheritance, that is, a father acquires the property and then it will pass on to the son.

MODES OF PARTITION

Before beginning with the share of each family member in the family, it is pertinent to know
the modes of partition. Majority of them are listed below:

1. Partition by father

The father under the Hindu Law has superior powers in comparison to the other coparceners
wherein by virtue of his rights i.e., ‘patria potestas’, he can separate himself from the Joint
family and also separate each and every son, including minors by affecting a partition.

2. Partition by agreement

If all the coparceners dissolve the joint status, it is known as Partition by agreement. The
court does not have the power to recognize any partition unless there is an agreement
between the parties on mutually agreeable terms. Moreover, a Partition agreement can also be
an internal arrangement among the family members, wherein the rights are compromised in
order to keep the dignity of the family and avoid unnecessary litigation. It is pertinent to note
that coparceners by a mutual agreement, can agree that they would not affect partition till the
happening of certain event, specific time period or even till the life of a particular coparcener.

3. Partition by Suit

The most common way to express one’s intention to separate himself from the joint family
property is filing a suit in the court. As soon as the plaintiff expresses his unequivocal
intention to get separated in the court, his status in the joint family property comes to an end.
However, a decree from the court is required which decides the respective shares of the
coparceners. The severance of status takes place from the date of filing such a suit in the
court. Both a minor and a major coparcener may approach the court for this purpose.

7|Page
In the case of Jingulaiah Subramanyam Naidu v Jinguliah Venkatesulu Naidu10, a partition
was sought of the property in the name of the wife of the opposite party claiming that they are
joint properties and without making titleholder as the party. Therefore, the court stated that
when the partition is sought of a party, it is a mandatory condition to make titleholder as a
necessary party.

4. Partition by Conversion

Conversion to a non-Hindu religion can lead to severance of status of coparcener belonging

to the Joint Family. The member who converted into religion would lose his membership of
the coparcenary, but it will not affect the status of other coparceners.

RIGHTS OF SONS TO PARTITION

Under Mitakshara school of Hindu law, all three lineal male descendants of the common
ancestor have a right to claim partition. That is a son, grandson and a great-grandson can
claim their share through a partition. Generally, only a property which is termed as joint
hindu family or coparcenary property is divisible through a partition between coparceners of
joint hindu family. Separate property of coparcener cannot be divided through a partition
deed. Coparceners to a joint family, generally, can give effect to partition because of their
right and consequently, are entitled to a share. But, the right to partition is exercised
differently by different members of the coparcenary. Under this head we discuss the rights of
the sons in a coparcenary property.

1. Son Born before Partition

They have birthright in the ancestral property and they have a right to partition.

2. Son in womb during Partition

Entitled to a share in the property but when no share is reserved, he can get the
partition reopened.

3. Begotten Son in Womb

The Son can demand a reopening if no share is reserved by the father for him.

10
Jingulaiah Subramanyam Naidu v Jinguliah Venkatesulu Naidu 2013 AIR (NOC) 323

8|Page
 4. Son of a Void Marriage

Not Entitled to right to partition.

5. Adopted Son

By virtue of S.12 of HAMA, adopted son has a right to partition.

6. Illegitimate Son of the Father

After the pronunciation in the case of Revanasidappa v. Mallikarjuna 201111,

illegitimate children including sons are now entitled to all properties of parents, both
ancestral or self-acquired.

RIGHT OF FEMALE MEMBERS TO THE PARTITION

Every human being has a right to be treated equally in every aspect of life. However, in our
society, the position of a woman is lower than a man’s and she is made to feel this inequality
particularly in her right to property. The patriarchal society in India disregards the Hindu
women’s right to property and considers her position to be inferior in the social and economic
aspects of human relationships. In ancient times, Hindu women’s property rights were beset
with manifold limitations. However, attempts have been in India to improve the position of
Hindu women with regard to her succession and inheritance rights with different legislative
enactments in pre and post independent India. Yet, the position could not be improved as
much as would have been expected. This is reflected in the 174th Report of the Law
Commission of India on “Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu
Law”.

1. Rights of Father’s Wife

A wife does not have a right to demand partition in a Hindu joint family as she is not
recognized as a coparcener. But if partition takes place between her husband and sons, she is
entitled to get a share equal to that of a son. If a father was married before the enactment of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and has more than one wife, each wife is entitled to a separate
share equal to that of a son. However, if the father dies before partition, the son will take the
entire property under the doctrine of survivorship and the wife/wives will not get any share.
11
Revanasidappa v. Mallikarjuna 2011 (86) ALR 450

9|Page
 2. Widowed mother

After the death of the father, if a partition takes place between the brothers, their widowed
mother will get the share equal to the share of a brother. Widowed mother includes the
stepmother too if she was married to the father prior to the HMA, 1955.

3. Paternal Widowed Grandmother

She has no right to demand partition but if a partition is taking place between her
grandsons, she is entitled to get a share equal to that of a grandson. Grandmother
includes step grandmother too.

Besides these three females, no one else is entitled to receive a share on partition. Daughter
since, is considered as a coparcener, has the right to demand partition after the amendment of
the legislation, thus, is not entitled to get share.

DAUGHTER’S RIGHT IN HINDU UNDIVIDED JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY

Pre-Independence Development

In pre-independence India, the Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, 1929 was the earliest
legislation which brought the Hindu females into the scheme of inheritance. Three female
heirs – son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter and sister were conferred the right of inheritance
under the Act. The second landmark legislation was the Hindu Women’s Right to Property
Act, 1937 which brought revolutionary changes and also tried to ensure that in the
Mitakshara coparcenary, the widow of the deceased would take the same interest which her
deceased husband had in the joint family property at the time of his death. She was made
entitled to claim partition as a male owner. However, in all cases, she was as a limited owner.
The widow though a member of a joint family and having right in coparcenary interest, was
not a coparcener. Although these legislative enactments conferred new rights of succession
on certain women, they failed to protect women against discrimination.

Post-Independence Developments

With the dawn of independence, the framers of the Constitution took note of the inequality
which had been perpetuated against women depriving them of social and economic justice as

10 | P a g e
envisaged in the Preamble to the Constitution of India, Fundamental Rights in Part III
(Articles 14, 15, 16), Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV (Articles 38, 39, 39A, 44)
and Fundamental Duties in Part IVA [Article 51 A (e)]. Despite these constitutional
mandates, women continued to be subjugated and deprived of her rights including property
rights. Consequently, amidst strong resistance from orthodox Hindu sections, the Hindu
Succession Act was enacted in 1956 and came into force on 17th June 1956.

TWO KINDS OF FEMALE PROPERTY BEFORE 1956

1. Stridhan

The word ‘Stridhan’ is constituted of two words namely, ‘stri’ meaning woman and ‘dhana’
meaning property. Stridhan is the property that is given to a woman at the time of her
marriage. According to Mitakshara and Dayabhag, the following in the hands of a women
(maiden, married or widow) constituted Stridhan:

 Gifts that are made before the nuptial fire.

 Gifts that are made at the time of bridal procession.
 Gifts that are made by mother-in-law or father-in-law as a token of love at the time of
her marriage. And,
 Gifts that are made by the mother, father, and brother of the women.

The question of whether a particular property is the Stridhan or not is also dependent upon
the source of acquisition of that particular property and the marital status of woman at the
time of such acquisition. The gifts and bequests that are made from strangers to the women
when she was maiden, married or widow is also her Stridhan.

The Supreme Court after observing the plight of an estranged woman laid down the
difference between dowry and Stridhan in the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar12. It held
that the woman is the absolute owner of her Stridhan and she can use it the way she wants to.
It also held that in ordinary circumstances, the husband will have no right or interest in the
Stridhan nonetheless in times of extreme distress he can use that but must restore it back
when he is able to do so.

2. Women’s Estate and her rights over it

12
Pratibha Rani V. Suraj Kumar,1985 AIR 628

11 | P a g e
Yajnavalkya’s text has expanded the meaning of Stridhan to include all the properties that are
obtained by a woman by virtue of inheritance, partition, seizure, purchase and findings.

The following are the two categories which are considered as woman’s estate:

 Property obtained by inheritance – Under the Bombay School, a property that is

inherited by a female from another female also comes within the ambit of Stridhan.
Therefore, according to this concept, everything that is voluntarily given by someone
to a female will be her Stridhan.
 Share obtained on partition – On partition a female is entitled to obtain her fair share
in the property, but she undertakes it only as a limited owner as her rights are subject
to two limitations, i.e.;

 She cannot alienate the corpus in the ordinary manner, and

 After her death, her property will be entrusted to the next heir of the last full
owner.

These limitations were also pointed out by the privy council in Janki v. Narayansami13, where
it was held that although the position of a women with respect to her property is that of an
owner, she cannot dispose it off on her whims and fancies as she has only limited power over
the disposal of such property. It further held that these limitations on the ownership of women
are imposed in order to benefit the person who has interest in the property of the women after
her death, i.e. her son, her daughter or even her husband.

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

1. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was made applicable to all Hindus including
Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs and lays down a uniform and comprehensive system of
inheritance and applies to those governed by Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools
as well as other schools. It tried to remove the existing inequality between male
and female with respect to rights to property in the joint family property and also
brought revolutionary changes so as to recognize the right of inheritance of Hindu
females at par with males.
2. But even this step of legislation was also not free from criticism pertaining to
gender bias. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came under heavy criticism for retaining

13
Janki v. Narayansami (1916) 18 BOMLR 856

12 | P a g e
 only males as coparceners in a joint family Mitakashara coparcenary. Section 6 of
the Act provided that whenever a male Hindu, having an interest in a Mitakshara
coparcenary property died after the commencement of this Act, then his interest in
property would devolve by rule of survivorship and not in accordance with the
Act.
3. It was held in M.  Yogendra  &  Ors. v. Leelamma N. & Ors.14

Women were having no interest in the coparcenary property and the share of
deceased coparcener devolved on the surviving coparceners. Property in the hands
of a sole coparcener allotted to him in partition shall be his separate property for
the same shall revive only when a son is born to him.

4. However, Proviso to Section 6 incorporates that when Mitakshara coparcener died

leaving behind a female heir of Class I or a male heir claiming through her, then
the interest would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession in accordance
with the Act and not by the rule of survivorship.

5. Acknowledging the discrepancies in regard to Hindu women’s position in

Mitakshara coparcenary, certain states, viz., Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
Maharashtra and Karnataka in India, took cognizance, that for economic and
social justice to prevail, women must be treated with equality. Accordingly, the
Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 completely and fully
abolished male’s right by birth to property and brought an end to the joint Hindu
family system. No one can claim any interest in ancestral property on ground of
birth in the family. By making amendment to section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956, the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka
in 1986, 1989, 1994, 1994 respectively, declared that daughters are coparceners in
Joint family property. As per the Amendment Acts of these four states, only a
daughter who was unmarried at the time of the amendment would be entitled to be
a coparcener by birth in her own right in coparcenary property and be subject to
similar liabilities and disabilities as incurred by sons.

14
M. Yogendra & Ors. v. Leelamma N. & Ors.,  (2009) 15 SCC

13 | P a g e
THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005

1. The Amendment Act, 2005 deleted Section 4 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956
and paved the way for women’s inheritance in agricultural lands becoming equal to
that of males. The amendment has done away with the discriminatory state-level
tenurial laws and benefited many women who are dependent on agriculture for their
sustenance. The Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 has addressed a very
pertinent matter relating to the rights of daughters in the Mitakashara coparcenary and
thus elevated the daughter’s position by amending section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act 1956. The status conferred cannot affect the past transactions of alienation,
disposition, or partition.15
2. The amended Section 6 deals with devolution of interest in coparcenary property.
Section 6(1) provides that the daughter of a coparcener in a joint family governed by
the Mitakshara law shall, on and from the date of commencement of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, by birth become a coparcener in her own right in
the same manner as the son. She shall have the same rights and be subjected to the
same disabilities in the coparcenary property as that of a son and any reference to a
Hindu Mitakshara Coparcenary shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter
of a coparcener. But this provision applies to both married and unmarried daughters
before the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2005.
3. Further the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son [section 6 (3) (a)]
and 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 [section 6(3) (b)].
Though the amended Section 6 is a significant advancement towards gender equality
and economic security for daughters, yet other females such as mothers have not been
given recognition as coparceners. Justice and equality cannot be secured for one
category of women at the expense of another.

SERIES OF JUDGMENTS

15
Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36

14 | P a g e
 1. In Prakash v Phulwati16, it was held that the rights of coparceners under
amendment act 2005 are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners
as on 9/9/2005 irrespective of the birth date of daughters.” It simply means
that If a coparcener(father) had passed away prior to Sept 9, 2005, the living
daughter of the coparcener would have no right to coparcenary property in
such case.
2. In Danamma v. Amar17, it was held that if the father passed away prior to date
09.09.2005 (the date on which amendment came) and a prior suit is pending
for partition by a male coparcener, the female coparceners will be entitled to a
share.

VINEETA SHARMA V. RAKESH SHARMA: CLEARING THE LAST HURDLE

TOWARDS GENDER EQUALITY IN HINDU PROPERTY LAW

The Court finally concluded as under:

 The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession

Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after
amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.
 The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from
9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or
alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before
20th day of December, 2004.
 Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father
coparcener should be living as on 9.9.2005.
 The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual
partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of
ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female
heir, of Class I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative
of such female.

16
Prakash v Phulwati, (2016) 2 SCC 36
17
Danamma v. Amar,  (2018) 3 SCC 343

15 | P a g e
MARRIED DAUGHTER’S RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER HINDU SUCCESSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

1. After marriage, a daughter will cease to be a member of her parental HUF but will
continue to be a coparcener.
2. She is entitled to ask for partition of the HUF property, as well as to become the Karta
of the HUF, in case she happens to be eldest coparcener of her father’s HUF. 
3. Even in case of a married daughter who has died, her children shall be entitled to the
shares that she would have received, if she were alive on the date of the partition. In
case none of her children are alive on the day of partition, the grandchildren will be
entitled to the shares that the daughter would have received on partition.

CONCLUSION

The position of Hindu woman in respect of her property right has undergone unprecedented
transformation from ancient times to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The
journey from exclusion to recognition of Hindu daughters in Mitakshara coparcenary has
been remarkable, but non-inclusion of other Hindu females is irrational and unjustified, for
all women are equally entitled to economic and social justice which the Constitution of India
proclaims. In spite, of some progress brought by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, females are still denied their lawful rights in the predominant patriarchal society.
Silence and self- denial on the part of women of being subjugated to unequal property rights
reinforces and further perpetuates injustice. Hindu women must be made aware through legal
literacy campaigns and social awareness programmes about their property rights, so that they
may fight for what is rightfully theirs, by virtue of being born as human beings. Concerted
efforts on the part of the government, non- governmental organizations, public and women
should be taken up to bring about attitudinal change in the mindset for promoting equal rights
based on humanity for achieving gender equality.

16 | P a g e