KIIT School of Law

Internal Assignment
Topic: Right of Women to Inherit Property

Submitted to: Ms. Manisha Manaswani

Submitted by:
Dauphin Sharma
Roll No. 1683067
BA LLB (2016 Batch)
 Right of Women to Inherit Property
Laws in a patriarchal society are based on gender and the property and inheritance laws
for women in India have traditionally been exploitative. The status of women's right to inherit
property has always been bleak. There has been constant struggle and agitation on their part to
acquire equal rights to inherit their father's ancestral property. Owing to the belief of them being
part of another family, initially women were not delved with coparcenary rights therefore kept
deprived of right on ancestral property.
Since there is no Uniform Civil Code in India, hence rights of property inheritance
depend on the claimant‟s religious faith/community. Hindu Succession Acts are applicable on
Hindu, Jain, Buddhists and Sikhs; Islamic/Shariya Laws applicable on Muslim women are
however different and more rigid, and recent times have brought certain limited changes; The
Succession Laws applicable on Christians, Jews and Parsis are more liberal

1. Hindu Women: Right to Inherit Property

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (enforced on 17th June 1956): This Act initially dealt
succession and inheritance of property by Hindu Women. It was applicable on Hindus,
Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. It codifies laws that deal with an intestate succession of the
property. A uniform system of succession was laid down under the act. Under the provisions
of this act, the coparcenary right was delved on to the male heirs only and extended up to
three lineages. The daughter/women had absolute right/ownership over Streedhan (all kind of
movable properties viz. cash, ornament & jewellery, deposits, investments, receivables as
well as immovable properties in any form gifted to her gifted to her by any person before,
during or after marriage) but she was kept excluded from the status of coperecerners. Albeit it
evolved from the previously existing Hindu laws it was inherited with its own anomalies.
The Indian constitution had always fostered a culture and concept of equality. As per
Article-14 of Indian Constitution, everyone is equal before the law and subjected to equality;
Article-15 of Indian Constitution further strengthens the provision of equality by authorizing
the government to take affirmative action and preserve and protect the interest of women and
other oppressed sections; these provisions had further been extended under Article-21 of
Indian Constitution which guarantees about the right to life with dignity. Regarding creation
of coparcenary right to the daughters,
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: This amendment in Hindu Succession Act
provided Hindu Women equal status of Coparcenary for inheritance of property.
Presently Rights of Hindu Women to Inherit Property are as below:
1.1 Property Rights of Daughter
A daughter stands to inherit an equal share of the parental (father‟s as well as
mother‟s) property, like her siblings. She is a coparcener in the ancestral property as her
brothers and shares the same liabilities towards this said property. A married daughter
can ask for maintenance or shelter in her parents‟ residence if she is widowed, divorced
or deserted. Once she attains adulthood, a daughter has complete rights over any property
or asset that is gifted or willed to her.
1.2 Property Rights of a Wife
According to Hindu Succession Law, a married woman has total rights over her
personal property that she can sell/gift/dispose of as per her wish. She is eligible for
shelter, support and maintenance from her husband and his family in case of a HUF
(Hindu Undivided Family). In the case of the division of property between her husband
and her children, she also gets an equal share as others. In case of her husband‟s death,
she is entitled to an equal share of the husband‟s assets divided between her, her children
and his mother.
1.3 Property Rights of a Mother
A mother is a Class I heir which means, she inherits an equal share of her
deceased son‟s assets as do his wife and children. If the children divide the family asset
after the father‟s demise, a mother is entitled to an equal share of the property as each of
her children. She is also entitled to shelter and maintenance from her eligible children.
She has full rights over her properties and assets and can dispose of them the way she
likes. On her death, though, her assets are equally inherited by all her children.
1.4 Property Rights of a Sister
A sister is a Class II heir and can claim her deceased brother‟s property only if he
has no Class I heirs – mother, wife and children
1.5 Property Rights of a Daughter-in-law
As per the inheritance laws for women in the Hindu Succession Act, the rights of
a daughter-in-law are very limited. A daughter-in-law has no right over the properties
owned by the parents-in-law – whether ancestral or self-acquired. She can acquire rights
over such assets only through her husband‟s inheritance and share.
1.6 Property Rights of Divorced Women
A divorced woman can demand maintenance and alimony but cannot lay a stake
on her ex-husband‟s property. If the property is registered in the husband‟s name, the law
recognises him as the owner. If the property is jointly owned, then the wife has to prove
her contribution to the purchase. Then she would be entitled to the share only up to her
contribution in the said property, according to property laws for women. In case of
separation without a formal divorce, the wife and children are entitled to their inheritance
on the man‟s property whether he has remarried or not.
1.7 Property Rights of a Remarried Widow
A widow gets an equal share of the husband‟s property along with the other Class
I heirs – his mother and his children. In case the widowed wife remarried, she was
supposed to give up her claim on the ex-husband‟s property, as per the Hindu Widow
Remarriage Act of 1856. But taking Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, if the
widow remains unmarried when the property distribution is discussed and marries much
later, she owns her share of the property.
1.8 Property Rights of a Second Wife
The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 considers polygamy illegal and a man cannot have
more than one legal wife at any point in time. Thus, the legality of the second marriage is
a crucial factor here. If the man remarries after his wife‟s death or after a formal divorce,
the second wife is a Class I heir to his property. If that is not the case, then the second
wife is not entitled to the deceased man‟s assets, though her children from this marriage
will be.
Rights of tribal women: It is also pertinent to mention here that as far as property rights of the
tribal women are concerned, they continue to be ruled by even more archaic system of customary
law under which they totally lack rights of succession or partition. The tribal women do not even
have any right in agricultural lands. Reform to making the property rights for women are being
resisted in the name of preservation of tribal culture!
In Madhu Kishwar & others v. State of Bihar & others there was a public interest petition
filed by a leading women‟s rights activist challenging the customary law operating in the Bihar
State and other parts of the country those were excluding tribal women from inheritance of land
or property belonging to father, husband, mother and conferment of right to inheritance to the
male heirs or lineal descendants being founded solely on sex is discriminatory. It was alleged
that even usufructuary rights conferred on a widow or an unmarried daughter become illusory
due to diverse pressures brought to bear brunt at the behest of lineal descendants or their
extermination. Even married or unmarried daughters are excluded from inheritance, they are
denied of the right to enjoy the property of her father or deceased husband for life. The widow on
remarriage is denied inherited property of her former husband. They elaborated further by
narrating several incidents in which the women either were forced to give up their life interest or
became target of violent attacks or murdered. Therefore the discrimination based on the
customary law of inheritance was challenged as being unconstitutional, unjust, unfair and illegal.
In the judgment in this case the Supreme Court of India laid down some important
principles to uphold the rights of inheritance of the tribal women, basing its verdict on the broad
philosophy of the Indian Constitution and said:
“The public policy and Constitutional philosophy envisaged under Articles 38, 39,
46 and 15(1) & (3) and 14 is to accord social and economic democracy to women as
assured in the preamble of the Constitution. They constitute core foundation for
economic empowerment and social justice to women for stability of political democracy.
In other words, they frown upon gender discrimination and aim at elimination of
obstacles to enjoy social, economic, political and cultural rights on equal footing.”
Another passage in this judgment that deserves to be quoted, wherein the desirability of
flexible and adaptable laws, even customary law, to changing times, was emphasized, is:
“Law is a living organism and its utility depends on its vitality and ability to serve
as sustaining pillar of society. Contours of law in an evolving society must constantly
keep changing as civilization and culture advances. The customs and mores must undergo
change with march of time. Justice to the individual is one of the highest interests of the
democratic State. Judiciary cannot protect the interests of the common man unless it
would redefine the protections of the Constitution and the common law. If law is to adapt
itself to the needs of the changing society, it must be flexible and adaptable.”
The Court declined to be persuaded by the argument that giving the women rights in
property would lead to fragmentation of lands:
“The reason assigned by the State level committee is that permitting succession to
the female would fragment the holding and in the case of inter-caste marriage or marriage
outside the tribe, the non-tribals or outsiders would enter into their community to take
away their lands. There is no prohibition for a son to claim partition and to take his share
of the property at the partition. If fragmentation at his instance is permissible under law,
why is the daughter/widow denied inheritance and succession on par with son?”
Accordingly it was held that the tribal women would succeed to the estate of their parent,
brother, husband, as heirs by intestate succession and inherit the property with equal share with
male heir with absolute rights as per the general principles of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as
amended and interpreted by the Court and equally of the Indian Succession Act to tribal
Christian.
In a substantially concurring but separately written judgment another judge of the Bench
supplemented another significant principle to strengthen the tribal women‟s right to property by
reading the right to property into the tribal women‟s right to livelihood. The judge reasoned that
since agriculture is not a singular vocation, it is more often than not, a joint venture, mainly, of
the tiller's family members; everybody, young or old, male or female, has chores allotted to
perform. However in the traditional system the agricultural family is identified by the male head
and because of this, on his death, his dependent family females, such as his mother, widow,
daughter, daughter-in-law, grand-daughter, and others joint with him have to make way to a male
relative within and outside the family of the deceased entitled thereunder, disconnecting them
from the land and their means of livelihood. Their right to livelihood in that instance gets
affected, a right constitutionally recognized, a right which the female enjoyed in common with
the last male holder of the tenancy. It was thus held:
“It is in protection of that right to livelihood, that the immediate female relatives
of the last male tenant have the constitutional remedy to stay on holding the land so long
as they remain dependent on it for earning their livelihood, for otherwise it would render
them destitute. It is on the exhaustion of, or abandonment of land by such female
descendants can the males in the line of descent take over the holding exclusively”.
This judgment is also noted for its extensive reliance on the mandate of international
Declarations and Conventions, most notably the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of
discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Universal Declaration, of Human Rights that
call for gender just legal systems and equal rights for women.

2. Muslim Women: Right to Inherit Property

Property rights are very complex under Muslim law. The concept of inheritance under it has four
features:
 The Koran specifies precise shares to certain persons;
 The residue goes to the agnates (an agnate is a person related wholly through males
either by blood or by adoption); in their absence, it goes to the uterine heirs (uterine heirs
are the persons descended from a common mother but by different husbands);
 Maximum one-third of any Muslim‟s property can only be given away in the form of a
will;
 Rights of inheritance begin only on the death of the person.
There are broadly two schools of thought in Muslim law- the Sunni and Shia. The Sunni
school predominantly operates in India. It has four sub-schools, which are Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki,
and Hanbali. The majority of Muslims in India follow the Hanafi school of thought.
Under the Hanafi school, there are seven categories of heirs (three principals and four
subsidiaries). The principal heirs are Koranic, Agnatic and Uterine heirs. The subsidiaries are the
successor by contract, the acknowledged relative, the sole legatee, and the state. The Shiites are
divided into a large number of sub schools, the two most important of which, so far as India is
concerned are the Ismailis and the Ithna Asharis, but they form a smaller section of the Indian
Muslim population.
Broad principles of inheritance in Muslim law: Till 1937 Muslims in India were governed by
customary laws which were highly unjust. After the Shariat Act of 1937, Muslims in India came
to be governed in their personal matters, including property rights, by Muslim personal law as it
“restored” personal law in preference to custom. However this did not mean either “reform” or
“codification” of Muslim law and till date both these have been resisted by the patriarchal forced
in the garb of religion.
Broadly the Islamic scheme of inheritance discloses three features, which are markedly
different from the Hindu law of inheritance: (i) the Koran gives specific shares to certain
individuals (ii) the residue goes to the agnatic heirs and failing them to uterine heirs and (iii)
bequests are limited to one-third of the estate, i.e., maximum one-third share in the property can
be willed away by the owner.
The main principles of Islamic inheritance law which mark an advance vis-à-vis the pre-
Islamic law of inheritance, which have significant bearing on the property rights of women, are:
(i) the husband or wife was made an heir (ii) females and cognates were made competent to
inherit (iii) parents and ascendants were given the right to inherit even when there were male
descendants and (iv) as a general rule, a female was given one half the share of a male. The
newly created heirs were mostly females; but where a female is equal to the customary heir in
proximity to the deceased, the Islamic law gives her half the share of a male. For example, if a
daughter co-exists with the son, or a sister with a brother, the female gets one share and the male
two shares.
The doctrine of survivorship followed in Hindu law is not known to Mohammedan law;
the share of each Muslim heir is definite and known before actual partition. Rights of inheritance
arise only on the death of a certain person. Hence the question of the devolution of inheritance
rests entirely upon the exact point of time when the person through whom the heir claims dies,
the order of deaths being the sole guide. The relinquishment of a contingent right of inheritance
by a Muslim heir is generally void in Mohammedan law, but if it is supported by good
consideration and forms part of a valid family settlement, it is perfectly valid. The rule of
representation is not recognized, for example, if A dies leaving a son B and a predeceased son‟s
son C, the rule is that the nearer excludes the more remote and, there being no representation, C
is entirely excluded by B. There is however no difference between movable property and
immovable property.
Some of the features of the Hanafi school are being pointed out here to get a glimpse into
the broad structure of the property rights of Muslim women in India. The Hanafi jurists divide
heirs into seven categories; three principal and four subsidiaries. The 3 principal heirs are
Koranic heirs, Agnatic heirs (through male lineage) and Uterine heirs. The 4 subsidiaries are the
successor by contract, the acknowledged relative, the sole legatee and the state by escheat.
The following 12 heirs constitute Class I heirs (Koranic Heirs):
(a) Heirs by Affinity - Husband and Wife
(b) Blood Relations - Father, True Grandfather (howsoever high), Mother, True
Grandmother (howsoever high), Daughter, Son‟s Daughter (howsoever low), Full sister,
consanguine sister, uterine brother, and uterine sister.
Rules of Exclusion: The husband and wife are primary heirs and cannot be excluded by anyone,
but they also don‟t exclude anyone either. Law fixes the share of the spouses; if they exist they
reduce the residue which may be taken by the Agnatic or Uterine heirs, but they do not exclude
either wholly or partly any heir. The father does not affect the share of any Koranic heir except
the sisters (full, consanguine or uterine) all of whom he excludes.
The mother excludes the grandmother, and the nearer grandmother excludes the more
remote. The mother‟s share is affected by the presence of children or two or more brothers or
sisters. Her share is also greatly affected by the existence of the husband or wife and the father.
In the case of a daughter she is the primary heir. She partially excludes lower son‟s daughters,
but one daughter or son‟s daughter does not entirely exclude a lower son‟s daughter. As far as
the sisters are concerned, one full sister does not exclude the consanguine sister, two full sisters
however exclude the consanguine sister. The uterine brother or sister is not excluded by the full
or consanguine brother or sister.
Another rule that requires consideration is that, „a person though excluded himself, may
exclude others.‟ For example, in a case where the survivors are the mother, father, and two
sisters: the two sisters are excluded by the father; and yet they reduce the mother‟s share to 1/6 th
. Class II heir (Agnatic heir): Their classification is done as follows; Males (Group I)- the
agnate in his own right, Group II (females)-the agnate in the right of another, Group III – the
agnate with another.
The first group comprises all male agnates; it includes the son, the son‟s son, the father,
the brother, the paternal uncle and his son and so forth. These in pre-Islamic law were the most
important heirs; to a large extent they retain, in Hanafi law, their primacy, influence and power.
The second group contains four specified female agnates, when they co-exist with male
relatives of the same degree, namely, daughter (with son), and son‟s daughter howsoever low
with equal son‟s son howsoever low, full sister with full brother and consanguine sister with
consanguine brother.
The third group comprises the case of the full sister and consanguine sister. For example
if there are two daughters and two sisters, here the daughter is preferred as a descendant to the
sister who is a collateral; thus the daughter would be placed in Class I and she would be allotted
the Koranic share and the residue would be given to the sister as a member of Class II.
Under this system the rule that is followed is first the descendants, then the ascendants
and finally the collaterals. The agnatic heirs come into picture when there are no Koranic heirs or
some residue is left after having dealt with the Koranic heirs.
Class III (Uterine heir): This class is constituted mainly by the female agnates and cognates.
Classification is group Idescendants, which are daughter‟s children and their descendants and
children of son‟s daughters howsoever low and their descendants, Group II-ascendants, which
are false grandfathers howsoever high and false grandmothers howsoever high, Group III-
collaterals, which are descendants of parents and descendents of grandparents true as well as
false. Members of this class succeed only in the absence of members of Class I and Class II.
They also succeed if the only surviving heir of Class I is the husband or the widow of the
deceased.
Property rights through marriage: The Supreme Court of India has laid down in Kapore
Chand v Kadar Unnissa, that the mahr (dower) ranks as a debt and the widow is entitled, along
with the other creditors of her deceased husband, to have it satisfied out of his estate. Her right,
however, is the right of an unsecured creditor; she is not entitled to a charge on the husband‟s
property unless there be an agreement. The Supreme Court has laid down that the widow has no
priority over other creditors, but that mahr as debt has priority over the other heir‟s claims. This
right is known as the widow‟s right of retention.
Will: There is a provision against destitution of the family members in the Islamic law in that it
is clearly provided that a Muslim cannot bequeath more than one third of his property. However
if he registers his existing marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 he
has all the powers of a testator under the Indian Succession Act, 19.
Right of Muslim Women to Inherit Property is summerised as below:
3.1 Property Rights of a Muslim Daughter
According to the faith, a woman‟s value is half that of a man. The inheritance laws for
women here give daughters half of what the sons are getting. But a woman has complete
control over her property and can dispose of it or manage/sell/gift it as per her wish.
Daughters have the right to residence in the parental property till marriage and after
 widowhood/divorce if she has no/minor children. Once the children are grown up enough to
take care of their mother, she becomes the children‟s responsibility.
3.2 Property Rights of a Muslim Wife
According to property laws for women in the Sharia, a married woman enjoys total
ownership over her own properties and other things. She is entitled to maintenance from
her husband, necessary reasonable provisions after divorce and a right to the „Mehr‟
amount decided during the marriage. In case of death of the husband and she being the
only wife, she will inherit one-fourth of his assets, if there are no children; and one-
eighth, if there are children in the marriage. If the deceased husband had more than one
wife, then each wife‟s inheritance reduces even further – say one-sixteenth. In case of the
absence of other sharers, a will by the husband can increase the inheritance of the wife up
to some extent.
A second wife under Muslim laws is a legal wife and has the same rights as the
first or third and fourth wife.
3.3 Property Rights of a Muslim Mother
A widow or divorced mother is entitled to maintenance from her children and
inheritance of one-sixth of the asset of her deceased child. Her own property is divided
according to the guidelines of Muslim Law.
3.4 Property Rights of Muslim Divorcee Women
A divorcee under Muslim inheritance laws for women gets her „Mehr‟ amount and
ceases to belong to her husband and his family. She is not a recipient of property from a
deceased ex-husband.
3.4 Property Rights of Muslim Remarried Widow Women
A remarried widow cannot claim any property rights from her dead husband.

3. Christians, Jews and Parsi (Zoroastrian) Women: Right to Inherit

Property
The laws of succession for Christians and Parsis are laid down in the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 (ISA). Sections 31 to 49 deal with Christian Succession and Sections 50 to 56 deal
with Succession for Parsis.
Christian women’s property rights: The Indian Christian widow‟s right is not an
exclusive right and gets curtailed as the other heirs step in. Only if the intestate has left
none who are of kindred to him, the whole of his property would belong to his widow.
Where the intestate has left a widow and any lineal descendants, one third of his property
devolves to his widow and the remaining two thirds go to his lineal descendants. If he has
left no lineal descendents but has left persons who are kindred to him, one half of his
property devolves to his widow and the remaining half goes to those who are of kindred
to him.
Another anomaly is a peculiar feature that the widow of a pre-deceased son gets
no share, but the children whether born or in the womb at the time of the death would be
entitled to equal shares.
Where there are no lineal descendants, after having deducted the widow‟s share,
the remaining property devolves to the father of the intestate in the first instance. Only in
case the father of the intestate is dead but mother and brothers and sisters are alive, they
all would share equally. If the intestate‟s father has died, but his mother is living and
there are no surviving brothers, sisters, nieces, or nephews, then, the entire property
would belong to the mother.
 A celebrated litigation and judgment around the Christian women‟s property
rights is Mary Roy v. State of Kerala & others in which provisions of the Travancore
Christian Succession Act, 1092 were challenged as they severely restricted the property
rights of women belonging to the Indian Christian community in a part of south India
formerly called Travancore. The said law laid down that for succession to the immovable
property of the intestate is concerned, a widow or mother shall have only life interest
terminable at death or on remarriage and that a daughter will be entitled to one-fourth the
value of the share of the son or Rs 5000 whichever is less and even to this amount she
will not be entitled on intestacy, if streedhan (woman‟s property given to her at the time
of her marriage) was provided or promised to her by the intestate or in the lifetime of the
intestate, either by his wife or husband or after the death of such wife or husband, by his
or her heirs. These provisions were challenged as unconstitutional and void on account of
discrimination and being violative of right to equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
The Writ Petition was allowed by the Supreme Court and the curtailment of the
property rights of Christian women in former Travancore was held to be invalid on the
ground that the said state Act stood repealed by the subsequent Indian Succession Act of
1925 which governs all Indian Christians. However, the provisions were not struck down
as unconstitutional since the Court felt that it was unnecessary to go into the
constitutionality issue of the provisions as they are in any case inoperable due to the
overrding effect of the ISA.
Parsi women’s right to property: Prima facie the property rights of the Parsis are quite
gender just. Basically, a Parsi widow and all her children, both sons and daughters,
irrespective of their marital status, get equal shares in the property of the intestate while
each parent, both father and mother, get half of the share of each child. However, on a
closer look there are anomalies: for example, a widow of a predeceased son who died
issueless gets no share at all.
Inheritance laws for Christian, Jews and Parsi women of various relationship categories
are as below:-
2.1 Property Rights of a Daughter
A daughter would inherit both the parents‟ properties equally along with her
siblings. She enjoys shelter and maintenance from her parents till she gets married. After
that, she is under her husband‟s maintenance. Her father remains her natural guardian as
long as she is a minor. After legally becoming an adult, she has a complete right over her
personal property.
2.2 Property Rights of a Wife
As a wife, a woman is eligible for maintenance from her husband. If he fails to
provide it, she can file for divorce on this ground. According to the inheritance laws for
women of the Christian faith, a widow is entitled to one-third of her husband‟s property
while the rest is divided equally among the children of the deceased. She gets half of the
assets if there are no children. The minimum amount that the wife must inherit from her
deceased husband is marked to be INR 5000.
2.3 Property Rights of a Mother
The property laws for women of the Christian faith do not consider a mother as a
dependent of the children. As a mother, a woman is not eligible for maintenance. But if
 the deceased child is unmarried and has no children, the mother is entitled to one-fourth
of the asset.
2.4 Property Rights of Divorcee, Remarried widow and Second wife:
The inheritance laws for women if they are Divorcee, Remarried widow and Second
wife, remain the same as in the Hindu Laws.

Landmark cases on recognition of property rights of women in India

Mary Roy v. State of Kerala (1986)
In this case, Mary, a Christian widow staying at her father‟s house in Travancore was
harassed and forced by her brothers to evacuate the property. As she had no other place to go,
she refused to leave the house. Her refusal led her brothers to hire some goon to threaten her. The
contention of the brothers was that the property belonged to them according to the Travancore
Succession Act, 1916 (the Act). They relied on Section 24 of the Act which stated that a
widowed mother has a life interest in the property and that a married daughter who
received Stridhan has no right to it. Mary‟s case against her brothers to get equal rights on her
father‟s property was denied by the Lower Court. However, the High Court ruled in her favour
and held that she has equal rights over the property. Nevertheless, even after getting her right
acknowledged, the harassment of her brothers did not stop. So, she approached the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutionality of Section 24
of the Act. Upholding Mary‟s rights, the Supreme Court held that-
 Section 24 of the Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India
 No personal law is above the Constitution of India;
 Any Act that invalidates the provisions of the Constitution of India is void;
 The Indian Succession Act, 1925 will apply in the present case, instead of the Act;
 One-third of the father‟s property will be Mary‟s.
This case proves to be one of the breakthrough decisions relating to the equal rights of Indian
Christian sons and daughters on the father‟s property.
Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1996)
In this case, the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Chota Nagpur Act, 1908 was
challenged. It was contended that the provisions favoured males belonging to the Scheduled
tribes in the succession to property. The court held a few of the impugned provisions
unconstitutional; however, it also held that the tribals, who are governed by their customs and the
custom vary from people to people and religion to religion, codified Hindu Law does not apply
to them.
Prakash v. Phulavati (2016)
In this case, the respondent (Phulavati) had initially filed a partition suit before the Trial
Court in 1992, after her father‟s death. She claimed 1/7th share in the properties that her father
acquired from his mother. While the suit was still pending, the Hindu Succession (Amendment)
Act, 2005 was made effective. The Amendment gave coparcenary rights to the daughters as well.
Phulavati used the opportunity; she amended her previous claim as per the 2005 Amendment.
The Trial Court only partly allowed her suit. Following the Trial Court‟s order, Phulavati
approached the High Court stating that she, being a coparcener as per the 2005 Amendment, has
share equal to her brothers in the father‟s property. The appellant (Prakash, Phulavati‟s brother)
contended that the 2005 Amendment will not apply in the present case, as the father died prior to
2005. The High Court ordered in Phulavati‟s favour and allowed the retrospective effect of the
2005 Amendment.
 Aggrieved by the High Court‟s decision, Prakash approached the Supreme Court. Finally,
the Supreme Court overruled the High Court‟s decision and held that the 2005 Amendment will
not apply to any partition which was effected before its enactment.
Danamma v. Amar Singh (2018)
In this case, the appellants were the two daughters of Late Shri Gurulingappa Savadi and
his widow, Sumitra. The couple also had two sons, Arun Kumar and Vijay. Amar Singh, the son
of Arun Kumar, filed the partition suit claiming a one-fifteenth share in Savadi‟s property. His
claim was based on the fact that the property was in the possession of the two sons and the
widow. He contended that the two daughters were not the coparceners, as they were born prior to
the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005 (the Act). Following the
Trial Court‟s decision favouring Arun Kumar, the appellants approached the High Court
challenging the decision. The High Court upheld the Trial Court‟s decision, following which the
appellants approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, held that Section 6 of
the Act has a retrospective effect on the devolution of coparcenary property. Daughters are
coparceners, irrespective of whether the father died before or after the 2005 Amendment.
Ultimately, the contended was equally divided into five shares, one each for the two sons, two
daughters, and the widow.
Hence, this case established the retrospective effect of the Act on the coparcenership of
women with regards to the father‟s date of death.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)
In this case, the appellant‟s father died in 1999. She had three brothers and a widowed mother.
One of her brothers died unmarried in 2001, after which she filed a suit claiming coparcenership
and one-fourth share in her father‟s property. But, the High Court rejected her claim stating the
fact that her father died before the 2005 Amendment. The High Court‟s decision brought
confusion to the retrospective effect of the 2005 Amendment because of the two previous
contradicting decisions in the cases Danamma v. Amar Singh (2018) and Prakash v.Phulavati
(2016). Clarifying this chaos, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Arun
Mishra gave a landmark verdict on the 11th of August, 2020. The bench upheld its decision in
the case of Danamma v. Amar Singh and overruled Prakash v. Phulavati. It held that a daughter
is considered a coparcener by birth, irrespective of whether her father is alive or not. Further, the
retrospective effect of the 2005 Amendment was also upheld and well-settled in this case.

References:
1. Law of Succession in Muslim Law | Law column
2. Women‟s Property Rights in India final Shruti Pandey.womenslinkworldwide.org
3. Muslim Woman‟s Right to Property in India – Property lawyers in India
(nrilegalservices.com)
4. hindu-succession-act-1956.pdf
5. Plight and struggles of Hindu women in the field of property rights : a historical study
– iPleaders
6. Judicial development towards gender justice – iPleaders
7. A Critical Analysis of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 – iPleaders
8. Prakash and Ors v. Phulawati and Ors – Inheritance rights of a daughter over
coparcenary property (indialaw.in)
9. Madhu Kishwar & others v. State of Bihar & others (1996) 5 SCC 125)
10. Kapore Chand v Kadar Unnissa (1950) SCR 747
11. Mary Roy v. State of Kerala & others (AIR 1986 SC 1011: (1986) 2 SCC 209)
12. Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir (AIR 1980 SC 707); Maharshi Avdhesh Vs. Union
of India (1994 Supp (1) SCC 713); Ahmedabad Women Action Group & Ors. Vs.
Union of India (1997 3 SCC 573); Pannalal Pitti Vs. State of A.P. (1996 2 SCC 498)
13. Anil Kumar Mhasi Vs. Union of India (1994 5 SCC 704); Githa Hariharan Vs.
Reserve Bank of India (1999 2 SCC 228); Daniel Latifi Vs. Union of India (2001 7
SCC 740); N. Adithyan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. (2002 8 SCC 106);
John Vallamattom Vs. Union of India (2003 6 SCC 611).
14. Masilamani Mudaliar Vs. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil (1996 8 SCC 525)
15. National Textile Mazdur Union Vs. P.R.Ramkrishnan (1983 1 SCC 224); Mohd.
Ahmed Khan Vs. Shah Bano Begum (1985 2 SCC 556); Jordam Diengdeh Vs. S.S.
Chopra (1985 3 SCC 62); Sarla Mudgal Vs. Union of India (1995 3 SCC 635); Lily
Thomas Vs. Union of India (2000 6 SCC 224); John Vellamatham Vs. Union of India
(2003 6 SCC 611).
16. Jolly George Verghese & Anr. v. State Bank of India: AIR 1980 SC 470;
Gramophone company of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey & Ors.: AIR 1984
SC 667; People‟s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Anr.: (1997) 3 SCC
433.
17. Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: AIR 1997 SC 3011; Gita Hariharan v.
Reserve Bank of India: AIR 1999 SC 1149; C. Masilamani Mudaliar & Ors. v. The
Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami: 1996 8 SCC 525