The status of women's right to inherit property has always been bleak.

They have constantly

been battling and agitating for equal rights to inherit their father's ancestral property. Initially,
women had no legal claim to the title of "coparcener," which is used to describe someone
who receives an equal portion in the inheritance of an estate. Women's rights to property have
been steadily improving over time. Women were not delved with coparcenary rights owing to
the belief of them being part of another family.

The Indian constitution has always fostered a culture and concept of equality, even though it
requires exercising positive discrimination. Under Article 14, everyone is equal before the
law and subjected to equality. Article 15 further strengthens the provision of equality by
authorising the government to take affirmative action and preserve and protect the interest of
women and other oppressed sections. These provisions are further extended under Article 21,
guaranteeing the right to life with dignity.

The struggle over women's property rights has been protracted, and the accomplishments
have been few and far between. Also, till the advent of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956,
most of the reforms were directly protecting the rights of wives. The introduction of the
notion concept in section 6 of the HSA1, with the daughter as a class I heir, was probably the
first step in the statutory recognition of a daughter's right to her father's property.

It has taken Parliament nearly fifty years to grant a right by birth to daughters, and the
attempt has been half-hearted, as is evident from the number of anomalies it has produced.
This project strives to paint a clear picture relating to the status of women as coparceners in
the contemporary context and discuss some of the ramifications of section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 2005

The amendment of section 6 in 2005 was a significant step in the rec of the property rights of
women. It is submitted that the retention of the right by birth with the inclusion of daughters
as coparceners is more conducive to the protection of their interests than the abolition of the
joint family itself. Henceforth, they would be protected against the consequences of the
testamentary disposition of the coparcenary property by the father. If the Dayabhaga system
had been adopted or the joint family system had been abolished, it would necessarily have
required the imposition of restrictions on the testamentary power of a person, which is
violative of individual freedom. Further, now if a daughter's marriage breaks down, then
being a member of her natal joint family, she would be able to return to it as a matter of right
rather than on the sufferance of her relatives.

However, the amendment is not a holistic one. It does not take into account the consequences
of making daughters coparceners in terms of the other provisions of the HSA. For instance,
under section 15 the husband and his heirs would be entitled to inherit property to which they
should not be equitably entitled.