Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli

TOPIC
JOINT HINDU FAMILY AND COPARCENARY
Submitted on: April 21, 2015
Submitted To:

Submitted by:

Ms. Sanitta Stephen Maria

Gaurav Sinha (BA0130021)

Research Questions

What is the concept of coparcenary and joint Hindu family?

What changes have been brought in the concept of coparcenary under Hindu

Succession Act, 1956 ?

How has the amendment of 2005 brought a major change in the concept of coparcenary and what
are its implications?

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The joint and undivided family has been hitherto been the normal condition of Hindu Society.
Coparcenery is a narrower concept than a joint family. Coparcenery is a unit of a joint Hindu
family. It consists of only male members up to three generations from the last male common
th

ancestor inclusive of him. Till the 19 century the laws relating to coparcenary were uncodified
but the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has amended and codified the law relating to intestate
succession among Hindus. The Act brought about changes in the law of succession among
Hindus and gave rights which were till then unknown in relation to womens property. However,
it does not interfere with the special rights of those who are members of Hindu Mitakshara
coparcenary except to provide rules for devolution of the interest of a deceased male in certain
cases. The Act lays down a uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and applies, inter
alia, to persons governed by the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools and also to those governed
previously by the Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri laws. With the gradual

progress in the society, the issue of gender inequality in respect to succession of ancestral
property .Thus, an amendment was brought in year 2005 which diluted the patriarchal system
prevailing in Hindu society which has been considered as a sminece of discrimination among
Hindu male and female. It also gives a serious blow to the Mitakshara coparcenary system,
strengthening the notion of patriarchy in Hindu society.
1.1 Objectives of Research
The objective of the present research is to understand the concept of coparcenary and its
incorporation in the Hindu Succession Act. Coparcenary is an ancient concept which has been
modified and incorporated in the Act. The present research work focuses on how through
generations the concept of coparcenary and joint Hindu family changed because of legislative
amendments and decisions of the cminets. Moreover, it also talks about the implications of such
amendments in regard to coparcenary and joint Hindu Family. The present study also provides
for various anomalies created due to the amendments and also provides some suggestions to
reform the Act.
2 Purpose and Significance of the Study
Succession and inheritance of property is very important aspect of any society. Property is so
important for a person to realize his worth in the society. With the gradual growth in the society
the old concept of old coparcenary has somewhat diluted. Now even females have got a share in
the ancestral property bringing equality in the society. But there still exist a lot of anomalies in
this regard. Thus, research in this topic can be done for two purposes: utilitarian and academic.
When papers are published on such issues, in comes in the limelight and efforts are made to
bring improvements in this regard. At the same time it serves the purpose of providing solution
to the problem. It even serves the purpose for further research in that particular field. When
research is done with taking into account the judgments of various cminets of India, government
policies and various personal laws involved, various solutions come to the forefront which may
bring a reform in the society.
1.3 Methodology of Research
Research methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problem. It may be
understood as a science of studying how research is done systematically .In it Istudy the various
steps that state generally adopted by a researcher in studying his research problem along with the

logic behind them. It is necessary for a researcher to know not only the research methods but also
the methodology.
The research methodology used in the conducting of the research is secondary in nature. It refers
to involving the summary, collation and/or synthesis of existing research rather than primary
research, where data is collected from, for example, research subjects or experiments.
Secondary research can come from either internal or external smineces. Web smineces like
ttp://cja.gov.in/data/Article.pdf and www.nalsar.ac.in. Certain recommended books by Poonam
Pradan, U.P.D Kesari and publications of various justices and eminent academicians have been
referred in this regard.
In analytical research on the other hand, the researcher has to use facts or information already
available, and analyze these to make critical evaluation of the material. The research conducted
is applied in nature as it provides a solution for the improving the condition of the women and
bringing reform in the society.

CHAPTER II
JOINT HINDU FAMILY & COPARCENARY: MEANING, IMPLICATION
AND

DISTINCTION
2.1 The Concept of Joint Hindu Family

Hindu joint family is a kind of family system, which is typically seen amongst the Hindus only.
The concept of Hindu joint family is nothing new, and it is in existence since long. This kind of
family was well recognized by customary laws. According to the Bombay High Cminet, a joint
Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from one common ancestor and includes
their wives and unmarried daughters.1 The joint nature is the fundamental feature of this kind of
family. However, the interpretation of this kind of jointness is not to be conceived in literary
sense. One may say that mere staying together can constitute the status of jointness. The
1 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lakshmi Narayanan, AIR 1935 Bom 412

meaning, however, is far wider. The family is treated as joint not only with reference to the estate
but also with regard to food and worship. However, the existence of a joint estate is not a
fundamental requirement. A Hindu family can also be treated as joint even in the absence of any
joint property. People may stay together for common enjoyment, nature of relationship existing
and for mutual support and cooperation. 2
The origin of the institution of Hindu joint family can be traced in the ancient texts and writing
of the Smritikars. This system, in fact, is sprung from the ancient patriarchal family, the earliest
unit of human society. The head of such unit was always despotic in its practice. Hence the
insertion of coparceners was entirely based on his absolute power. This institution is basically a
creation of law and enfolds within it the lineal male descendants of a common ancestor and
includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters. Joint family status is
ordinarily the result of birth or affiliation by the way of marriage and need not necessarily be

linked with the possession of joint family property. The presumption as to the jointness of any
Hindu family basically revolves around the judicial principles laid down under various case laws.
However, the basic premise is that in absence of any apparent division, every Hindu family is
considered as joint family. Such presumption is stronger in case of brothers living together rather
than cousins. However, this very presumption goes weaker when members keep on going further
from the father in terms of relationship with him.

The Hindu joint family is a normal condition of the Hindu society. Its origin can be traced to the
ancient patriarchal system where the patriarch or the head of the family was the unquestioned
ruler, laying down norms for the members of his family to follow, obeyed by everyone in his
family, and having aunparalleled control over their lives and properties.
At the root was the general family welfare or promotion of family a unit for which personal
interests of the family members could be sacrificed. Under Hindu law therefore the joint Hindu
family came first in historical order and the individual recognition of a person distinct from the
family came later.
2 Kader, S A,The Hindu Succession Act 1956 , Eastern Law House, 2004, p.16- A Hindu Joint Family
must consist of at least two members. An unmarried male Hindu, on partition, does not by himself alone
constitute a Hindu undivided family

2.1.1 Composition of Hindu Joint Family

A Hindu Joint Family consists of all male members descended lineally from a common male
5

ancestor together with their wives, or widows and unmarried daughters. An unmarried daughter
on marriage ceases to be a part of her fathers joint family and joins her husbands joint family as
his wife. If a daughter becomes a widow or is deserted by her husband and returns to her fathers
house permanently, she again becomes a member of her fathers joint family and continue being
members of their fathers joint family. Even a illegitimate son of a male descendant would be a
6

member of his fathers joint family. A child in the womb till it is not born is not a member of

Agarwal, R K, Hindu Law, Dr. S.K. Singh (Eds), Central Law Agency, 2006, p.284. Since time immemorial the
Hindus are accustomed to live in joint family units. Hence a joint Hindu family may best be understood by showing
the status of jointness of members of whom it is made up. The existence of a joint property is again not required but
what is required is ordinary household articles which they enjoy in common.
4
Binod Jena v. Abdul Hamid Khan, AIR 1975 Orissa 159.
5
SurjitLal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1978) 101 ITR776.
6
GurNarain Das v. GurTahal Das, AIR 1952 SC 225
7

joint family for taxation purposes but it is treated as in existence for certain purposes under
Hindu law.
The members of a joint family are bound together by the fundamental principle of sapinda-ship
or family relationship, which is the essential feature of this institution. The cord that knits the
members of the family is not property but the relationship with one another. The MitakHindu
Succession Act, 1956 ra doctrine of joint family property is founded upon the existence of an
8

undivided family as corporate body. The first requisite is the family unit, and the possession by
it of family property is the secondary requisite. Such body with its heritage is purely a creature of
law and cannot be created by acts of parties save in so far that by adoption stranger may be
9

affiliated as a member of that corporate family.

The Supreme Cminet in SurjitLal Chhabda v. Commissioner of Income Tax, observed that the
joint Hindu family is thus a larger body consisting of a group of persons who are united by the
tie of sapindaship arising by birth, marriage or adoption.
Members of joint family- the members of joint family consist of the following Males:

 Those that are lineally connected in the male line.

Collaterals.

Relatives by adoption, and

Poor dependents.

Son born out of marriage between a Hindu man and Christian woman under Special
Marriage Act.

Females

The wife or the widowed wife of a male member, and

His maiden daughters.

Srinivasan v. Commissioner of Income tax, AIR 1962 Mad 146. 8SundarasamMaistiri v. NarasimhuluMaisteri, (1902)

ILR 25 Mad 149, 154. 9GanasavantBal Savant v. NarainDhond Savant, (1883) ILR 7 Bom 467, 471

The joint family system is organized on a principle of subordination and not on that of coordination or equality of the members with respect to rank under position under it. No two
persons can be equal; one of them must be superior and the other relatively to each other.
Presumption of Jointness- The general principle is that every Hindu family is presumed to be a
joint Hindu family and continues to be joint unless contrary is proved.
joint in food, worship and estate.

10

It is presumed to be

2.1.2. Factors determining Joint Hindu family

Until the contrary is proved, every Hindu family is assumed to be joint in terms of food,
worship and estate. Mere living separately does not breach this jointness. Though it may
be a relevant factor towards proving the state of separated but however it is not a
conclusive one.

11

Once a family is regarded as joint, then in absence of any clear-cut separation, the

presumption of jointness remains intact. This indeed is a very strong presumption and it
favmines the brothers who are continuing with the state of being joint. The burden of
proof lies on the person who alleges that there is a severance of the joint status.

12

In case of a partition already taken place, the general presumption would be that the joint
status is no more available. However, at that time, if there is someone alleging that some
part of the property is still existing in the undivided form then the burden shall be upon
13

the person who alleges the existence of such unpartitioned property.

When a joint family continues to hold property jointly then such property shall be treated
as joint family property. However, on the basis of mere fact that the family is joint no
assumption can be drawn that the nature of holding property is also joint. This is true
because of the principle already referred above that it is not an essential requirement for a
14

joint family to hold or possess property jointly.

10

BahagwanDayal v. Reoti Devi, AIR 1962 SC 287.

Supra note 3 at p. 285.
12
Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405.
13
K V NarayanswamiIyer v. K V Ramakrishna Iyer, AIR 1957 SC 289.
14
D Rudrappa v. H Renukappa, AIR 1993, Kant, 148.
11

The concept of Coparcenary in Hindu Law

The system of coparcenary is a narrower institution within a joint family comprising only male
members. The group of persons, unlike the joint family, is related to each other only by blood or
through a valid adoption. No person can by marriage and no stranger can by agreement become a
member of coparcenary, as it is a creation of law.
Under the classical law, no female could be a member of coprcenary. The senior most male
member is called the last holder of the property and from him a continuous chain of three
generations of male members from the coparcenary. These males up to three generations from
the present/last holder of the property have a right by birth in the joint Hindu family property and
have a right to ask for partition of the same. Under the Hindu Succession (Amendment)Act,
2005; a daughter has been introduced as a coparcener.

2.2.1 Features of Coparcenary

The lineal male descendants of a person, up to third generation (excluding him), acquires
interest on the coparcenary property held by him.

Coparcenary is necessarily a creation of law and it can never be created by agreement or

otherwise.

In any coparcenary system whenever a coparcener is born acquires an interest by virtue

of his birth.

A coparcenary system is a unique example of unity of possession and community of

interest. Till a partition takes place no coparcener can have absolute ownership on the
coparcenary property and hence alienation of such property without required permission
and purpose is invalid.

The interest in any coparcenary property is always fluctuating as the amount of interest
varies with the birth and death of coparceners.

A coparcenary property involves collective enjoyment only. There is no concept of

individual enjoyment unless there is a partition to the effect.

In a Mitakshara coparcenary any major coparcenary can ask for partition any time. Such
right for the asking for partition is an inherent right by virtue of his birth in that very
coparcenary property and such right cannot be taken away by any contract in contrary.

If a property is a coparcenary property then alienation of interest is of any kind with

respect to that property is null and void since every coparcener gets a birth right on that
property hence without giving their due interests.

15

2.2.2 The Two Schools of Coparcenary

In Hindu law of succession the coparcenary is still not codified. There are two Schools, viz., the
Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga. According to the Mitakshara School, there is unity of ownership
- the whole body of coparceners is the owner and no individual can say, while the family is
undivided that he has a definite share as his interest is always fluctuating being liable to be

enlarged by deaths and diminished by birth in the family. There is also unity of possession and
enjoyment. Further, while the family is joint and some coparceners have children and others have
few or none or some are absent, they cannot complain at the time of partition about some
coparceners having exhausted the whole income and cannot ask for an account of past income
and expenditure. Katyayana expressly states that the joint family property devolves by
survivorship that is on the death of a coparcener his interest lapses and goes to the other
coparceners. The conception of coparcenary under the Dayabhaga School is entirely different
from that of the Mitakshara School. Under the Dayabhaga School, sons do not acquire any
interest by birth in ancestral property, but the sons right arises only on the fathers death and the
sons take property as heirs and not as survivors
2.2.3 Evolution of Joint Family Systems in India and Codification prior 1956
Hindu joint family is a very old system but still prevailing. In the old times the intricacies of
Hindu joint family were only governed by the old customary laws. This used to prevail even
during the continuance of the British period. However it is from that very time that the
legislature had started intervening into the system slowly. The legislative intervention kept on
increasing from time to time, and after independence, there have been substantial inroads by the
15

PoonamSaxena, Family Law Lectures, Lexis NexisButterworths, New Delhi, 2010, p.111-113.

legislature into this system. Not only the parliament but various state legislatures too have helped
in giving newer shape to this system of joint family. As far as the legislative interventions are
concerned, one may face this particular question as to what made the legislature intervene into
the system of joint family. The general answer could be the appearance of certain irregularities in
the eyes of legislature. This is true that in the old customary laws there were inequalities with
respect to distribution of property in a joint family and such inequalities were apparent in case of
females. Hence there was an imperative for the legislature to intervene in this system to make it
equitable. Thus family system should not be spared only because it is governed by personal
sphere of the individuals. As far as the evolution of Hindu joint family is concerned, the
following legislative interventions can be considered substantial
Caste Disabilities Removal Act 1850

To discuss the scheme of this Act, it is necessary to look at the background of this Act. Before the
passing of this Act, difference of religion between the intestate and the legal heir created a kind
of impediment for succession as at that point of time the general rule was that only a Hindu can
inherit from another Hindu. Thus if any Hindu changes his religion before succession then he
was considered no longer entitled to receive the property. Hence a Hindu, by the reason of his
conversion, was subject to disqualification from his property rights. To overcome this problem,
the British government brought this particular legislation.

16

Now the result after passing of this

Act is that a Hindu does not lose his proprietary rights because of the only reason of conversion
into another religion. He continues to be a member of the family for the purpose of inheritance of
the property. However the Hindu converting into new religion alone is entitled to take benefits of
this Act and not his legal heirs. It is indeed landmark legislation with respect to the joint family
system and that too in such a time period when the society was hugely divided in terms of race,
religion, caste and all. The greatest achievement of this Act is doing away with the existing
customary laws or usages leading to the deprivation of proprietary rights on the grounds of caste,
religion etc.
16
17

17

Supra note 10 at p. 128

Section 1 of this Act reads so much of any law or usage now in force within India as inflicts on any person forfeiture
of rights of property, or maybe held in any way to impair or affect any right of inheritance by reason of his or her
renouncing or having been excluded from the communication of, any religion, or being deprived of his caste shall
cease to be enforced as law in any Cminet.

The Hindu Womens Right to Property Act 1937

This is perhaps the second incident of legislative intervention into the system of Hindu joint
family system. This Act provided that where a Hindu dies intestate leaving behind any property,
then the widow or widows of the Hindu dying shall be entitled to same share of the property as a
son.

18

In case of widow of a predeceased son, she shall inherit the property in the same manner

in which the son would inherit if he were alive.

19

If the Hindu dying belongs to any other school

than the Dayabhaga leaves certain interest in a Hindu joint family property then his widow shall
20

also be entitled to the same interest like that of the male Hindu himself had in the property.

However any of such interest vested on a Hindu woman shall be treated as limited interest
known as Hindu Womens Estate provided however that she shall have the same right of
claiming a partition as a male owner.

21

This Act has an overriding effect on the ground that this

law shall be applicable even if there is a customary law contrary to the provisions of this Act.

22

The Supreme Cminet considered this Act in one of the cases. In that case, the one of the
coparceners died in the year 1938. This was after the Act came into force. One of the widows in
the family demanded partition in the year 1950 and by that time other coparceners also died. The
cminet held that she was entitled to receive the property in the form of half share on partition.

23

From this decision it became clear that the widow of the coparcener incidentally gets the benefit
out of the rule of survivorship which is in operation as between other coparceners.

24

The

Supreme Cminet got another opportunity to interpret this Act. In that very case a person died in
an undivided family. Now, by virtue of the 1937 Act, his widow stepped into his shoes. She then
18

Section 3 (1) reads when a Hindu governed by Dayabhaga school of Hindu law dies intestate leaving any
property, and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu law or customary law dies intestate leaving
separate property, his widow, or if there is more than one widow, all his widows together, shall subject to the
provisions of Sub-section (3), be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same as a
son.
19

Proviso (1) to Subsection 3 (1) reads provided that the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit in like manner as a
son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son, and shall inherit in like manner as a sons son if there is
surviving a son or sons son of such predeceased son.

20

Sub-section (2) of section 3 states than when a Hindu governed by any school of law other than the Dayabhaga
school or by customary law dies having at the time of his death an interest in the joint family property, his widow
shall,21subject to the provisions of Sub-section(3), have in the property the same interest as he himself
had. Sub-section (3) of Section 3.

22

Section 4 reads notwithstanding any rule of Hindu law or custom to the contrary, the provision of Section 3 shall

apply where a Hindu dies intestate.

23
Potti Lakshmi Perumallu v Krishnavenamma, AIR 1965 SC 825
24
SubbaRao, G C V, Family Law in India, SubbaRao, T V (Dr) & Kumar, Vijender (2006), S Gogia& Company,
Hyderabad, p.81.

demanded a partition. However the partition did not take place in metes and bounds before her
death. After her death the daughter claimed the property in the capacity of reversioner. However
this was objected by the other parties on the ground of survivorship. However the cminet held
that daughter was entitled to acquire the property. The cminet observed that the Act of 1937 had
no effect in making the widow as a coparcener. However, the 1937 Act allows the widow to enter
into the steps of her husband and to claim the property in the capacity of a coparcener. But it
cannot be said that this Act makes widow a coparcener in true sense as she is not a coparcener
25

because of her own capacity. This Act has been repealed by Hindu Succession Act of 1956.
2.3 Distinctions between a Joint Hindu Family and Coparcenary
A Coparcenary is an institution within a joint family and the primary differences between the two
are as follows:

The joint family is a bigger institution and includes a coparcenary within it. Thus, there
can be a joint family without a Coparcenary, but there can never exist a coparcenary
without a Hindu joint family.

There is no presumption in law that a joint family has any property at all. However, the
concept of coparcenary is presently understood to determine the rights and obligations of
the members of the joint family over the property. This is the reason why in the joint
family the senior most male member is called Karta and he purposes of coparcenary he is
described as the Last holder of the property.

Joint family is much broader than the coparcenary and there is no limitation on the
number of members in the joint family or the number of generations that it may
encompass within it, but a coparcenary is limited to fmine generations of male members
only.

A joint family has both males and females as its members but coparcenary under the
classical law comprised only male members and no female could be a member of the
coparcenary.

25

In a joint family, members can be added by birth, by adoption or even by marriage to

lineal male descendents. In a coparcenary, a member can be added only by birth or a

Satrughan v Sabujpari, AIR 1967 SC 272

valid adoption i.e., all coparceners must be related to each other by blood or by adoption
and no person can become a coparcener by marriage.

All the members in the joint family do not have equal rights over the joint family
property. Some have only a right to maintenance out of the joint family funds or a right of
residence in the family house, while others may have a right to seek partition and have an
interest in the copacenary property. But in the coparcenary all members have an interest
in the coparcenary property by birth and have a right to demand a partition of their
interest in this property.

Disqualified coparceners are members of joint family but not members of coparcenary
even though they may be within fmine generations from the last holder of the property
and therefore cannot ask for partition of the property.

Hence, a joint family stands clearly distinguished from a coparcenary and if a joint family is the
genus, coparcenary is the species.

26

26

Kamalakantamohapatra v. Pratap Chandra Mohapatra AIR 2010 Ori.13

2 Partition
Partition means to divide into parts or to separate. Under Hindu Law, it means a division or
splitting of a joint Hindu family into smaller, separate and independent units, with conferment of
separate status on the undivided coparceners. A partition refers to a severance of the joint status
of coparceners and a division of coparcenary property only.27 The separate property of a
coparcener cannot be subjected to a partition as only the owner can claim right over it. No
partition is possible unless there are at least two coparceners in a joint family. No partition can
take place, if there is only one coparcener, he would be called a sole surviving coparcener.

Persons entitled to ask for Partition

General rule is that coparceners have a right to demand a partition and destruct their joint status.
However, a partition can be demanded in certain situations by an alienee or a purchaser, in the
execution of a decree of cminet of the undivided share of a coparcener.
3.2.1.1 Alienee or Purchaser in Execution of a Cminets Decree
Since these persons are strangers to the family, they do not have a right to have a joint possession
of the property with the rest of the coparceners and are entitled to demarcate only the share that
they are entitled to.

28

This partition will not have adverse effect on the share of the rest of the

coparceners, who would continue to be members of the joint family as before.

3.2.1.2 Coparceners
A coparcener, who is major and of sound mind, can demand a partition and specification of his
share from the Karta. It is one of his inherent rights and what he does by demanding partition is
simply asking for a demarcation and specification of what exactly belongs to him exclusively
and for a right to deal with it as a separate person. He need not give any explanation or
justification for seeking partition, nor is the Karta legally entitled to seek the same.

29

If the Karta

does not give in to the demand of partition made by the coparcener, such a coparcener can go to
the cminet and institute a suit for partition.
3.2.1.3 Minor Coparcener
Though a minor coparcener is equal in ownership with a major coparcener but he does not have a
right to demand a partition from the father or the Karta. But this does not mean that at his
instance, no partition can be affected. The minor can file a suit for partition against the Karta, not
personally, but through a next friend. In these cases, the cminet acts as parenspartriae and
assumes a very important role.

30

The cminet has to be convinced in such cases that the partition

would be in the interests of the minor and not affecting a partition would adversely affect his
interest.

28

D. OdabbasappaBasappaBelavigiv. GadigeppaVerappanelogal, (2003) ILR 4 Kant 2987

. 29Satyajeet A. Desai, Mulla Hindu Law, 491- 492, (21st ed. 2013).
30
RangaThatachariv.Srinivasa, (1927) ILR 50 Mad 866.

Conversion

As the term Hindu Joint Family itself suggests, only a Hindu can be its member. A coparcener
who renounces his religion and converts to other religion, immediately ceases to be a coparcener.
His share becomes fixed and is to be handed over to him. His rights, in joint family or in the
31

coparcenery property, cannot be forfeited upon his conversion , but are ascertained and he goes
out of the family immediately, after taking his share as it stood on the date of his conversion.
The primary reason is that in India, amongst the multiplicity of family laws, the religion of a
person determines which family law will govern his family relations. Till a person is a Hindu, it
is the Hindu law that applied to him, but the moment he converts to another religion, his family
law also changes.

32

So religion is the deciding factor.

3.2.1.5 After Born Son

A son, who was in the womb of his mother at the time of partition and was subsequently born
alive, is treated as if he was in existence at that time.

33

He has a right to demand re-opening of

the partition if no share is reserved for him. The rule is that if the factum of pregnancy is known,
either the partition should be deferred till the birth of the child or a share should be kept apart for
it. If the child born is a male, his share should be allotted to him, and if the child is not born
alive, or is female, such share should be redistributed among all the coparceners. Where the
factum of pregnancy is not known and a partition was effected, such an after- born son, has a
right to re- open the partition.
3.2.1.6 Adopted- Son
A male child can become a member of a joint family by a valid adoption. From the moment of
adoption, he is deemed dead for the natural family and is presumed to be born in the adoptive
family, and acquires a right by birth (from the date of adoption), in the joint family property. He
has a right to demand a partition and is entitled to a share equal to that of the adoptive father. He
34

is also entitled to have the benefit of survivorship and on the death of the father ; an undivided
adopted son takes his share by the doctrine of survivorship.
31

Govindv. Abdul, (1903) ILR 25 ALL 546.

32
MitterSen
33

Singh v. MaqbulHasan Khan, AIR 1930 PC 251.

Jagat Krishna v. Ajit Kumar, AIR 1964 Ori 75.
34
Supra Note 1.

Persons entitled to get share at the time of Partition

3.2.1.1 Coparcener
All coparcener, whether minor or major, are entitled to get a share at the time of partition.

35

Since they had an undivided interest in the property, a partition merely divides their title and
gives them exclusive ownership. In partition, it is only the branches that separate, the minors in a
particular branch may not be allotted a share, and the same can be held by them in common with
their father and brothers.
3.2.1.2 Son born of a voidable or void marriage
A child born of a void or voidable marriage, is a legitimate child of the parents and statutorily
entitled to inherit their separate property, yet, at the same time, he cannot inherit from any other
relation of the parents. It means that he cannot inherit the property of the brother who is a
legitimate offspring of the father. His rights are better than those of an illegitimate child, but
inferior to those of a child born of a valid marriage.

36

For the purpose of statute, he is considered

to be legitimate.
3.2.1.3 Illegitimate Son
Presently, an illegitimate son inherits only from the mother, and not from the father. Under the
old law, the rights of an illegitimate son to get a share at the time of partition, depends upon his
caste. Among the three castes, Brahimns, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, an illegitimate son is not a
coparcener, but a member of his putative fathers joint family, and therefore, though he is not
entitled to a share in the property his rights of maintenance out of the joint family funds are
recognized.

37

3.2.1.4 Female Members

Although the ownership of the coparcenary property is with the coparceners only, and a female
member of the joint family can neither be a coparcener, nor claim any title to the coparcenary
property, if and when an actual partition takes place under the classical Hindu law, certain female
members in the joint family are entitled to get a share. In the Mitakshara School, three categories
of female members (fathers wife; mother and paternal grandmother) are to be given a
35

RadhamaniBhaiyaninv. DaibakarBhaiya, AIR 1991 Pat 91.

SHantaramv. Dugubai, AIR 1987 Bom 182.
37
Vellayappav. Natarajan, (1931) 58 IA 402.
36

share. They cannot demand a partition of the property themselves.

38

But if partition has taken

place and she is not given a share, then she is empowered to reopen the partition and claim her
share.
3.3 Rules for calculation of Shares
On a partition among the members of a joint family, all the members may effect a division
among themselves, or only the branches may separate. The following rules
while calculating the shares of the members who separate:

39

are to be observed

(i) A partition has to be effected between two generations as the first step, for example, between a
father and his sons.
(ii) The shares are to be so calculated that the share of the father on the one hand, and the share of
each of the son on the other, are absolutely equal.
(iii)

The father takes the share as his exclusive or separate property with respect to the sons,
while the son takes it as coparcenary property when he has male issues. In the absence of any
male issue, he takes the property as a sole surviving coparcener.

(iv)

Where one son dies during the lifetime of the father and leaves behind male issues, the
branch of the deceased son takes the share that he would have taken had he been alive.

(v) where a joint family comprises only brothers, each of them takes an equal share. This is called a
per capita distribution.
(vi)

Each branch takes the property as per stripes (according to the stock), but the members of
each branch will take per capita as regards each other.

(vii)
When female members, who are entitled to get a share, are present, they must be given a
share at the time of partition.
In nutshell, the fundamental principle of partition is that every co- sharer be given property of
equal value, having similar potential.

38

Supra Note, 6.

39

Supra Note 1.

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

The Amendment Act, 2005 is a progressive and remarkable step towards gender justice. The
Amendment dilutes patriarchal system prevailing in Hindu society which has been considered as
a sminece of discrimination among Hindu male and female. It also gives a serious blow to the
Mitakshara coparcenary system, strengthening the notion of patriarchy in Hindu society. In other
words, by this Amendment Act Indian Parliament has made an attempt to diminish
discrimination between son and daughter in respect to succession of ancestral property. Under
Mitakshara system of law, the whole property of any Hindu male is divided into self acquired
and ancestral property. In respect of intestate succession of self acquired property the law is
uniform for both son and daughter. However, the law of intestate succession for ancestral
property discriminates between son and daughter. The Amendment Act, 2005 tries to encounter
inequality provisions at several fronts e.g. agriculture lands, the Mitakshara coparcenary
property, pious obligation of son, parental dwelling house and certain widows right.

The first most important change brought by this Amendment Act, 2005 is the substitution of a
new section 6, which provides that a daughter would be a coparcener from her birth, and would
have the same rights and liabilities as a son.

40

40

Section 6(1) says that: on and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a
Joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall-(a) By birth become a
coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;(b) Have the same right in the coparcenary property as
she would have had if she had been a son:(c) Be a subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary
property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference
to a daughter of a coparcener.

Secondly, on the death of a Hindu having interest in coparcenary property, such property would

devolve either by testamentary or intestate succession as the case may be but not by
41

survivorship .
Thirdly, this Amendment also removes the concept of pious obligation of son
giving special status to son in comparison to daughter.

42

etc. which was

5.2.1. Introduction of daughters as coparceners

Since the daughter has been made a coparcener by way of the amendment she has been put at par
with the son and gets a birth right in the ancestral property owned by the coparcenary. For
example, the daughter would have a birth right in the property separately owned by her paternal
grand-father, and if he dies intestate leaving behind his son (the father of the daughter) then the
daughter shall have an interest in the said property as a coparcener and she would be entitled for
partition along with the right to demand partition from her father.
According to this amendment if the daughter dies intestate; her interest in coparcenary would
devolve by succession in accordance with section 15

43

of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

and if the daughter is left alone by deceased male coparcener, she shall inherit his entire property
of which she would become absolute owner and after her death, if she dies intestate shall devolve
44

upon her heirs as per section 15 . Further, the daughter now has the right to dispose of her
interest in coparcenary by making a will and if she is a lone heir she shall become absolute
owner of the property and shall also have a right to alienate it during her life time.
This amendment also created a right to have a share in the joint property during the partition
favmine of children of the daughter and her pre-deceased daughter, in case of their death. The
said heirs, not being coparceners, would not have right to demand partition but they would be
entitled to their share as provided in amended section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 .
41

Section 6(3): The coparcenary property of a Hindu male who dies after the commencement of the Act without
leaving behind him any female heirs (or male heirs who claim through certain female relatives) will devolve upon
the remaining male coparceners equally. This is something called survivorship. It is an exception to the general rule
of succession.
42
Section 6(4): The doctrine of the pious obligation, under which the coparceners were bound to honmine the debits
incurred by the father, grandfather or great grandfather.
43
Section 15 is regarding General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.
44
Ibid.

Important Adjudications by the Apex Cminet

Since the amendment Act, there it was expected that women approaching the Cminets to
ascertain their right in the coparcenary property.
45

The Supreme Cminet in the case of Sheela Devi and Ors.v. Lal Chand and Anr. dealt with the
question of right of a coparcener of a Mitakshara family under the old Hindu Law vis- a`visHindu Succession Act, 1956 . The contention raised therein that the provisions of the
Amendment Act, 2005 will have no application as the succession had opened in 1989 was
negatived, holding:
The Act indisputably would prevail over the old Hindu Law. Such a provision was enacted as
far back in 1987 by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The succession having opened in 1989,
evidently, the provisions of Amendment Act, 2005 would have no application. Sub-section (1) of
Section 6 of the Act governs the law relating to succession on the death of a coparcener in the
event the heirs are only male descendants. But, proviso appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 6
of the Act creates an exception. Section 6 is exception to the general rules. It was, therefore,
obligatory on the part of the Plaintiffs-Respondents to show that apart from Lal Chand, SohanLal
will also derive the benefit thereof. So far as the Second son SohanLal is concerned, no evidence
has been brought on records to show that he was born prior to coming into force of Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 . Thus, it was the half share in the property of Babu Ram, which would
devolve upon all his heirs and legal representatives as at least one of his sons was born prior to
coming into force of the Act.
46

In M. Yogendra and Ors.v.Leelamma N. and Ors. , the Supreme Cminet held that
The Act indisputably would prevail over the Hindu Law. Imay notice that the Parliament, with a
view to confer right upon the female heirs, even in relation to the joint family property, enacted
Hindu Succession Act, 2005. Such a provision was enacted as far back in 1987 by the State of
Andhra Pradesh. The succession having opened in 1989, evidently, the provisions of Amendment
Act, 2005 would have no application.
45
Sheela
46

Devi and Ors.v. Lal Chand and Anr., 2007 (1) MLJ 797 (SC)
. M. Yogendra and Ors. v.. Leelamma N. and Ors, 2010 (1) ALL MR (SC) 490.

Iaccordingly hold that the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are not
retrospective in operation and where a male Hindu died before the Act came into force i.e. where

succession opened before the Act. Section 8 of the Act will have no application.
47

In Anar Devi and Ors.v.Parmeshwari Devi and Ors. , the Supreme Cminet held that Thus
Ihold that according to Section 6 of the Act when a coparcener dies leaving behind any female
relative specified in Class I of the Schedule to the Act or male relative specified in that class
claiming through such female relative, his undivided interest in the Mitakshara coparcenary
property would not devolve upon the surviving coparcener, by survivorship but upon his heirs by
intestate succession. Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Act provides a mechanism under which
undivided interest of a deceased coparcener can be ascertained and, i.e., that the interest of a
Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have
been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death,
irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. It means for the purposes of
finding out undivided interest of a deceased coparcener, a notional partition has to be assumed
immediately before his death and the same shall devolve upon his heirs by succession which
would obviously include the surviving coparcener who, apart from the devolution of the
undivided interest of the deceased upon him by succession, would also be entitled to claim his
undivided interest in the coparcenary property which he could have got in notional partition.
48

The Supreme Cminet in R. Mahalakshmiv. A.V. Anantharaman and Ors. held that: Perusal of
the aforesaid provision of law makes it abundantly clear that the daughters who have got married
prior to 1989 may not have equal share as that of a son but the daughters who got married after
1989 would have equal share as that of a son. In other words, daughters who got married after
1989 would be treated at par with son having the same share in the property.
49

In G. Sekarv.Geetha and Ors , the Supreme Cminet held that It is, therefore, evident that the
Parliament intended to achieve the goal of removal of discrimination not only as contained in
Section 6 of the Act but also conferring an absolute right in a female heir to ask for a partition in

47

Anar Devi and Ors.v. Parmeshwari Devi and Ors, SC 4171 (2006).
R. Mahalakshmiv. A.V. Anantharaman and Ors, (2009) 9 SCC 52.
49
G. Sekarv.Geetha and Ors, 2009 (5) Mh. L. J. 755 (2).
48

a dwelling house wholly occupied by a joint family as provided for in terms of Section 23 of the

Act.
Iare, therefore, of the view that where a repeal of provisions of an enactment is followed by fresh
legislation by an amending Act such legislation is prospective in operation and does not affect
substantive or vested rights of the parties unless made retrospective either expressly or by
necessary intendment.

Critical Analysis of the 2005 Amendments

The Amendment made to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in 2005 has attempted to make the

daughter of coparcener a coparcener. By introducing the daughter as a coparcener, the

traditional patriarchal nature of the coparcenary has experienced a dramatic change. There is a
confusion surrounding the definition of the Mitakshara Coparcenary, in the light of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - the position of the daughter of a coparcener is one which
needs to be examined.
5.3.1. Lack of Distinction between Married and Unmarried Daughters
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 clearly states that the daughter of a
coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.
However, the matter is not so simple.
The first problem encountered on examining Section 6 entails the lack of an explicit distinction
between married and unmarried daughters. This fact must be emphasized as the married and the
unmarried daughter do differ in respects such as membership of family; something which is
crucial to the notion of the coparcenary.

50

However, working under the assumption that the term

daughter, as used in the Act, is inclusive of both married and unmarried daughters, it is necessary
to understand that the attempt to distinguish between a married and unmarried daughter might
prove futile, with respect to defining the coparcenary.
Exclusion of Adopted Daughters
Another interesting problem while defining the coparcenary concern the inclusion or exclusion
of the adopted daughter is concerned. The text of the Section 6 of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 nowhere mentions any reference to an adopted daughter, but maintains
the inclusion of only a daughter by birth, as a part of the coparcenary.

51

Thus, for all practical

purposes, it is impossible to include the adopted daughter in the new definition of the
coparcenary - a matter which needs to be re-examined.

50

BinaAgarwal, Womens inheritance: next steps, Article in The Indian Express, October 17, 2005, retrieved from
<http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=80167>
52
Vijender Kumar, Coparcenary Under Hindu Law: Boundaries Redefined, Nalsar Law Review, Vol.4, Number 1,
2008-09, p.37.

Womens Rights enshrined in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Womens right to property has been substantially improved by the Hindu Succession Act 1956.
The concept of women being entitled to a limited estate when they acquire property by
inheritance is abolished and women are entitled to an absolute estate like men when they inherit
any property. Again the daughter of a predeceased son and the daughter of a predeceased
daughter are raised to a higher rank. They became Class I heirs and get a share along with the
son, and other Class I heirs. The daughters are included in the Class I in order to remove the
discrimination on the basis of sex. Similarly succession to a womens property or stridhanam of
whatever nature is made uniform irrespective of the nature of stridhanam. In the same way the
distinction between male and female heirs in the case of succession has been taken away and
now they are treated on equal basis if they belong to the same degree of relationship. Women will
no longer be disinherited on the ground of unchastity.

52

Section 6
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 contains provisions affecting the devolution of coparcenary
property by survivorship and testamentary succession. Section 6 of the HSA 1956 speaks of
retention of coparcenary rather than its abrogation. The opening and the principal part of old
section 6 of the Act preserves the concept of Mitakshara coparcenary in its pristine form by
providing unequivocally that when a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act,
having an interest at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his
interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the
coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act. For the applicability of notional partition and
for defeating the doctrine of survivorship, the first and the foremost condition is that the
deceased has left behind him, either a class-I female heir or a male class-I heir claiming through
a female heir. In the class-I category, there were a total of twelve heirs of which eight were
females. The ninth heir, whose presence will also have the effect of application of a fictional
partition, is a male claiming through a female.
The basic purpose of the inclusion of the concept of notional partition in the Act was to give a
better deal to the near female heirs and cognates of the intestate, and to prevent the passing of the
52

FLAVIA AGNES, LAW AND GENDER INEQUALITY: THE POLITICS OF WOMENS RIGHTS IN INDIA, 19(1999).

interest in the coparcenary property to the coparceners to the exclusion of such female and
cognate relations.

53

Section 14
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, makes it clear that any property possessed by a
female Hindu (whether acquired before of after the commencement of the Act) becomes her
absolute property to be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. This section
recognizes equality of sexes and elevates the women from subservient position in the field of
economy to a higher pedestal. Whatever share or property she received in lieu of her
maintenance became her absolute property after 1956.

54

Section 23 of the HSA, 1956

Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the general provision is that the rights of a son and a
daughter are equal. It is without the reference to the type of property available for succession. An
impression is created therefore, that whatever may be the type of property, be it a house, cash,
clothes, vehicle, shop or even household goods, a daughter has an equal claim over it, not merely
of ownership, but also of a right to possess, enjoy and alienate it in the same manner as a son.
But where the inherited property comprised a dwelling house that was in the occupation of the
male members of the family of the intestate, special rules were provided for its devolution.
By virtue of this provision, ownership of all class- I female heirs in a dwelling house, is
narrowed down to a right of residence only. What they are denied is a right to have their shares
partitioned and specified, till the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares among
themselves. Where the female heir happens to be a daughter, her ownership is without a right of
residence and demarcation of her share unless she is unmarried, a widow, or has been deserted by
or is separated from her husband.

55

An equitable division of property is what the legislature expects shares to give effect to, but here,
there are no rules requiring the brother, who now has a legal permission to enjoy the share of the
53

MAINES TREATISE ON HINDU LAW AND USAGE , 1091(1986).

FITZGERALD P.J, SALMOND ON JURISPRUDENCE, 411 (2003).
55
Kanaka LathaMukund, Turmeric Land, womens property rights in Tamil society since early medieval times,
XXVII/17,ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY,WS-2(1992).
54

sister, to give her something in return. This free for life use of the share of a female by a male

heir, without her consent, is in the nature of deprivation of one for the unjust enrichment of

another. This deprivation is of the right of the female, so that the male heirs can live comfortably
in her share. Section 23 gives physical possession and enjoyment of her share to the male heirs
but they cannot sell her share.

56

Amendment Act of 2005 and Womens Rights

The Amendment made in 2005 was based on the recommendations made by the Law
Commission in its 174th Report on Hindu womens property rights. In fact the Commission had
taken the subject suomoto because of the glaring discrimination existed in the
Mitaksharacoparcenery. It was observed by the Commission that since time immemorial property
laws were enacted for the benefit of men. Property rights had been denied to Hindu women just
to exercise control over them and to make them subjugated and dependent on men64. In the Joint
family women were entitled only to maintenance. On the contrary a son acquires birth right in
the ancestral property since he is a coparcener. The retention of the coparcenery excluding
females perpetuated the traditional male dominance in the matter of inheritance. The
Commission pointed out this inequity and said that it is in fact a fraud on the Constitution. On
the basis of these findings the commission recommended for the amendment of Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act 1956.

57

56

POONAMPRADHANSAXENA, FAMILY LAW LECTURES FAMILYLaw (2nd ed.2004).

57Aggarwal ,Bina, Landmark step to gender equality, THE HINDU , May 25,2005.

Woman as Karta
Amendment to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act since the daughter has been made a
coparcener by way of the amendment she has been put at par with the son and gets a birth right

in the ancestral property owned by the coparcenary. For example, the daughter would have a
birth right in the property separately owned by her paternal grand-father, and if he dies intestate
leaving behind his son (the father of the daughter) then the daughter shall have an interest in the
said property as a coparcener and she would be entitled for partition along with the right to
demand partition from her father. According to this amendment if the daughter dies intestate; her
interest in coparcenary would devolve by succession in accordance with section 15 of the HSA
and if the daughter is left alone by deceased male coparcener, she shall inherit his entire property
of which she would become absolute owner and after her death, if she dies intestate shall devolve
upon her heirs as per section 15. Further, the daughter now has the right to dispose of her interest
in coparcenary by making a will and if she is a lone heir she shall become absolute owner of the
property and shall also have a right to alienate it during her life time.
Section 6 of the amended Act 2005 has completely wiped off all the in equalities in Section 6 of
the 1956 Act at one stroke. The females in the joint families are elevated to the status of
coparceners having birth right in the ancestral property equal to that of a son. Thus women are
given coparcenery status. Some of the discriminations that existed in sections 23 and 4 (2), have
been omitted by the 2005 Act.
Another notable achievement of the 2005 Act is the inclusion of all daughters especially married
daughters as coparceners in the Joint Family Property. Section.6 of the 2005 Act removed the
discrimination between married and unmarried daughters73. It took away the notion that after
marriage the daughter belongs only to her husbands family. If her marriage breaks down, she
can now return to her natal home as a matter of right and not on the displeasure and mercy of the
relatives. This will certainly enhance her self-confidence worth and give her greater bargaining
power for herself and her children, in both natal and marital families. Further giving daughters
right to ancestral property will also have an impact on changing the inherently unequal power
58

equations between the majority of the husbands and wives even today.
58

Tulsamma v. Sesha Reddy AIR, SC 1944 (1977).

The Law Commission has also addressed the discrimination inherent in the Mitakshara
coparcenery under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 Law Commission
recommended for the omission of Section 23 from the 1956 Act. The Commission advocated that
daughters should get full right of residence in their parental home. It was also viewed by the

Commission that the bar on partition by female heirs could take away the true spirit of
coparcenery right. Therefore the Commission deleted Section 23 in order to strengthen the
coparcenery rights of the Females.

59

Consequently Section 23 of the 2005 (Amendment) Act was omitted to confer all daughters
(including married daughters) the same rights as sons to reside in or seek partition of the parental
dwelling house. By deleting Section 23 of 1956 Act, the amending Act (2005) removed the last
remnants of discrimination against women. The objective of the section is to prevent the
fragmentation of a family dwelling house at the instance of a female heir to the prejudice of the
male heir. This section reflected one of the ancient Hindu law tenets that treasured the dwelling
house of the family an impartible asset. By the omission of section 23, the daughter can remain a
daughter forever and she will not lose her relations with her natal family even after marriage.
Similarly the Amendment Act (2005) removed the second discrimination between women
themselves on the basis of their marital status. The section was based in favor of unmarried
daughters and granted them the right to residence in the dwelling house but only till they were
unmarried80. It is pertinent to note here the Supreme Cminets path breaking decision in Savitha
Samvedi v. Union of India as early as in 1997. It was held that the differentiation based on
marital status is wholly unfair, unreasonable and gender biased, and violates Article 14 of mine
Constitution.

60

DELETION OF SECTIONS 4(2) AND 23 OF HSA 1956

The omission of Section 4(2) of The Hindu Succession Act 1956 is another achievement of the
2005 amendment Act82. By the deletion of Section 4(2) of The Hindu Succession Act 1956, a
highly discriminatory clause of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 has been removed. Now woman
also has inheritance rights over agricultural lands just as men. The third achievement of the
59

From Marginalization to empowerment, Action Aid

Study on Status of Women & Agriculture Land Ownership in Gujarat, by Working Group for Women and Land
Ownership-Gujarat, 5 (2004).
60

Amendment Act 2005 (The Hindu Succession Act) is the omission of Section 23 of the 1956 Act
thereby giving all daughters (married or not) the same rights as sons to reside in or seek partition
of the family dwelling house. Section 23 denied residential rights to married daughters in their
parental home. Unmarried daughters are given residence rights but could not demand partition.

The 2005 Act also deleted Section 4 of 1956

The Hindu Succession Act which barred certain widows of predeceased sons, from inheriting the
deceaseds property, if they had remarried. Now the disability is removed and they can also
inherit Several scholars contended that Section 23 was per se discriminatory as it provides male
heirs with the absolute right to seek partition while making right of female heirs contingent on
the right of male heirs. The object is to prevent the fragmentation of a family dwelling house at
the instance of a female heir to the prejudice of the male heirs. The ancient Hindu law considered
the dwelling house as unimpartible asset. The Cminets are also giving verdicts favoring this
strong patriarchal concept.

60,61

The 2005 Amendment meticulously carried out the changes that

are recommended by the Law Commission in its 174th Report. The omission of discriminatory
provisions removed the disabilities of the women in the matter of inheritance and have been
conferred a status equal to that of men as envisaged under Article 14, 15 and 16 of the
Constitution. Moreover when HSA was amended by the 2005 Act it was thought that Hindu
women would start litigation claiming their right in the coparceneryproperty.Sekarv.Geetha&Ors
the Supreme Cminet made it clear that the Parliament intended to achieve the goal of removal of
discrimination not only as contained in Section 6 of the Act but also conferring an absolute right
to a female heir to ask for a partition in a dwelling house wholly occupied by a joint family as
provided for in terms of Section 23 of the Act.

60

Dr. Nitya Rao, Good Women Do Not Inherit Land ,SOCIAL SCIENCE PRESS (2008).

61

174th Report on Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law, Law Commission
of
India, May 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agarwal, R K, Hindu Law, Dr. S.K. Singh (Eds), Central Law Agency, 2006.

Agnes Flavia, Law and Gender Inequality. The Politics of Womens Rights in India, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1999.

Agrawal K.B., Family Law in India, Kulwer Law International, The Netherlands, 2010.

Diwan Paras, Modern Hindu Law, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2007.

Gandhi B. M., Family Law, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 2003.

Gaur, Commentaries on Hidnu Law , Dwivedi & Co., Allahabad, 2006.

Gopalakrishran T. P., The Hindu Succession Act, Law Book Comapany, New Delhi, 1959.

Gupte, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Premier Publishing Company, Allahabad, 2006.

Kader, S A,The Hindu Succession Act 1956 , Eastern Law House, 2004.

Kohli Hari Dev, Supreme Court on Hindu Law, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi,
2010.

th

Mayne, Hindu Law and Usage, 15 Edition, Bharat Law House, New Delhi, 2006.

Nandi, Hindu Law, Dwivedi law Agency, Allahabad, 2007.

Saxena Poonam Pradhan, Family Law Lectures II, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur,
2009.

Sen D. N., The Hindu Succession Act: (Act No. 30 of 1956), Cambray, 1998

Sethi Raghbirala B., The Hindu Succession Act, Law Book Company, New Delhi, 1975.

Sethi Raghbirlal Bhagatram and Chandak M. L., The Hindu Succession Act (Act No. 30 of 1956),
Law Book Company, New Delhi, 1975.