Family Law

Assignment

Name : Dheeresh Yadav

Enrollment Number : 35551103817
Class : BALLB
Section : A

Year : 2nd

SUCCESSION UNDER HINDU LAW

The law of Inheritance deals with rules, which govern devolution of property on the death of its
owner. In Hindu law, the concept of the joint family system came much earlier in point of time;
the law of inheritance came later and applied only to the property belonging exclusively to a
person as distinguished from property held by the joint family. In the primitive age Women and
children were alike. They were classed as chattels and possessed no right of property. In course
of time, the son's right was recognized, then the right of other male kinsmen. At this stage of
social evolution, women were still chattels. They had still no rights of their own. The recognition
of woman's right of inheritance is of comparatively recent origin. Several difficulties and
complications however came in the way owing mainly due to the differences in the law of
inheritance amongst the two major school of Hindu laws viz. the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga
and the Matriarchal systems prevailing in some Southern parts of the country. Besides this, some
more anomalies and some early inequitable rules. of succession had come into existence partly
due to historical reasons and .partly due to the conservative approach of judicial interpreters.

The provisions of the Act introducing the Female heirs

A son's daughter, daughter's daughter, sister and sister's son shall, In the order so specified be
entitled to rank in the order of successjon next after a father's father and before a father's brother,
provided that a sister's son shall not be included, if adopted after the sister's death (section 2).
This. Act was very limited in its scope and did not make any radical change in Hindu Law in
favour of women. By this Act neither daughters nor widow were provided with the right of
Inheritance. The Act only emphasized that certain degrees of remoter male heirs should be post
posed in favour of the nearer degrees of female heirs and nothing more. So the provisions of the
Act were not particularly radical in support of women's right to property. Further, Act II of
1929 . was limited in the sense that it regulated succession only in the case of the separate
property of a Hindu male dying intestate. Its aim was not1 to alter the law in respect of the
property of a female, but only to ensure that when a husband succeeded. to his wife's stridhan .
property, it descended in the same way as if it had belonged to the husband himself, after her
death. If at such time, Act II of 1929 was in force, it was that Act which governed succession;
and the property could not be deemed to be the property of a female.

Succession to female Decease

The effect of Section 14 of the Act is that it confers absolute· ownership on a female Hindu i.e.,
the widow of the last male holder in respect of all properties left by a male Hindu which was in
her or their possession on the date of the commencement of this· Act, even though the husband
or the male Hindu .had died long before the commencement of the Act. From a plain reading of
Section 14 (1) it is clear that the estate taken by a Hindu female under that provision is an
absolute one and is not defeasible under any circumstances. The ambit of the inestate cannot be
cut by any text rule or interpretation of Hindu law. It has been held by the Supreme Court that
Section 14 clearly says that the property possessed by a female Hindu on the date when the Act
came into force whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act shall pe held by
her as full owner thereof. Thus Section 14 of the Act is retrospective in effect.·

The word 'Property' as used in Section 14 (1) of the Act, as per its explanation, includes both
movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu. The property may be of the
following description as property acquired:

(i) By inheritance or device; or

(ii) By a partition; or

(iii) In lieu of maintenance or arrears of inheritance; or I

(iv) By a gift from any person whether a relative or not, beforeat or after her marriage; or

(v) By her own skill or exertion; or

(vi) By purchase or by prescription; or

(vii) In any other manner whatsoever and

(viii) Also any property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this
Act.

Case Laws

Debahari Kumbhar v Sribatsa Patra1

The court below have categorically found and I also agree that the defendants had no title over
the said property either by virtue of the alleged deed of surrender or by virtue of adverse
possession. They did not claim to have authority to possess pursuant to any authority from any
other co-sharer of the suit property, Law is well settled that one of the co-sharers can evict a

1
AIR 1994 Ori 86.
person having no right to possess which would ensure to the benefit of all the co-sharers.
Therefore, 1 do not intend to disturb the ultimate conclusion of the learned courts below that the
plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit property, but it would not mean that the
plaintiffs are the sole owners of the suit property. In the result, the second appeal is disposed of
with the aforesaid observations.

Bhaghat Ram L.Rs v Teja singh2

The Trial Court decreed the suit filed by Teja Singh. The appeal filed against the said decree was
dismissed. Bhagat Ram (deceased) then preferred the second appeal before the High Court,which
was also dismissed. The High Court held that the property held by Smt. Santi on her death
devolved on Teja Singh who was the brother of the pre-deceased husband of Smt. Santi.
However, on appeal, this Court by its Judgment dated 31.3.1999 held that the property held by
Smt. Santi was the property inherited by her from her mother; therefore, clause (a) of
sub-Section (2) of Section 15 is the relevant provision which governed the succession and Teja
Singh had no right in the property left by Smt. Santi and that it would only devolve on her sister
Smt. Indro.

2
AIR 2002 SC 1.