THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

Regal Mentor Mob-9995400709

The Enduring Influence of Ancient Hindu Law

Legal systems from ancient civilizations across the world are now accessible to us.

However, it is remarkable that no other legal system continues to govern a large

population today using the exact words written thousands of years ago. This unique

characteristic belongs to the ancient Hindu legal system, which has retained its

influence over centuries.

Until the enactment of the Hindu Law Acts in 1955-1956, ancient texts such as those

of Manu, Yajnavalkya, and Vasistha played a crucial role in shaping laws related to

marriage, inheritance, and adoption. These texts formed the foundation of Hindu

personal law, guiding legal decisions and societal norms for nearly three thousand

years.

Ancient Hindu Legal System

The ancient Hindu legal system is rooted in sacred scriptures such as the Manusmriti,

Yajnavalkya Smriti, and other Dharmashastra texts. These texts provided

comprehensive guidelines on various aspects of life, including law, ethics, and social

conduct. They formed the foundation of Hindu jurisprudence, influencing legal

principles and social customs for centuries.

These scriptures established rules governing marriage, inheritance, adoption, and

other civil matters. Unlike many ancient legal systems that have faded over time,

Hindu law remained in practice for thousands of years. Even before the Hindu Law

Acts of 1955-1956 reformed personal laws, these ancient texts continued to shape

legal traditions and societal norms in India.

Hindu Law Acts of 1955-1956

The Hindu Law Acts of 1955-1956 were a series of legislative reforms in India that

modernized and codified Hindu personal laws. These acts replaced the traditional

legal system based on ancient scriptures like the Manusmriti and Dharmashastras,

bringing uniformity and clarity to legal matters. The reforms aimed to address issues

related to marriage, inheritance, adoption, and guardianship in a structured and

progressive manner.

This legal transformation included four key legislations: the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955, which regulated marriage and divorce; the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which

redefined inheritance laws; the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which

outlined guardianship rights; and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956,

which set rules for adoption and maintenance. These acts marked a significant shift

from traditional customs to a more modern legal framework, ensuring legal rights

and equality within Hindu personal law.

Texts of Manu, Yajnavalkya, and Vasistha

The ancient Hindu legal system was shaped by the writings and teachings of

prominent lawgivers such as Manu, Yajnavalkya, and Vasistha. Their texts laid

down fundamental principles governing various aspects of life, including law,

morality, and social conduct. Among these, the Manusmriti is one of the earliest and

most influential legal texts, serving as a foundational source for Hindu law.

Similarly, the Yajnavalkya Smriti and the works attributed to Vasistha played a

crucial role in defining legal principles related to justice, governance, and personal

conduct. These texts provided guidelines on matters such as marriage, inheritance,

and punishment, influencing Hindu legal traditions for centuries. Even though

modern laws have replaced many of these ancient rules, their historical significance

remains deeply embedded in the evolution of Hindu jurisprudence.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

According to sec 2 of this Act, it applies―

(a) to any person, who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or

developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo,

Prarthana or Arya Samaj,

(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and

religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by

the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the

matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.

Explanation. ―The following persons are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by

religion, as the case may be: ―

A.M Bhattacharjee, Hindu Law and the Constitution (2018), p.5

(a) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus,

Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs by religion;

(b) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, one of whose parents is a Hindu,

Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion and who is brought up as a member of the

tribe, community, group or family to which such parent belongs or belonged;

Sikh religion.

According to sec2(2) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),

nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe

within the meaning of clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution unless the

Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.

Sec 2(3) provides that the expression “Hindu” in any portion of this Act shall

be construed as if it included a person who, though not a Hindu by religion, is,

nevertheless, a person to whom this Act applies by virtue of the provisions contained

in this section.

In C. Masilamani Mudaliar & Ors. v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil

& Ors

the Supreme Court held that the Act applies retrospectively to a Hindu

woman's property acquired before the Act came into force, ensuring her equal rights

to inheritance.

. (1996) 8 SCC 525

In Prakash v. Phulavati

, the Court addressed whether the amendments to

Section 6, giving daughters equal rights in coparcenary property, apply

retrospectively. The Supreme Court held that the amendment to Section 6 is

prospective in nature and applies only to living daughters of living coparceners as on

the date of the amendment (September 9, 2005).

In Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors

,the Supreme Court

ruled that daughters have coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of whether they

were born before or after the enactment of the Act, if the coparcener (father) was

alive on the date of the amendment.

In Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi

the court examined the

retrospective application of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

The Supreme Court held that the amended Section 6 applies retrospectively, ensuring

daughters are entitled to equal shares in the property.

DEFINITIONS [SEC 3]

(a) AGNATE

(2016) 2 SCC 36

. (2018) 1 SCC 650

(2011) 9 SCC 788

One person is said to be an “agnate” of another if the two are related by blood or

adoption wholly through males.

(b) ALIYASANTANA LAW

“Aliyasantana law” means the system of law applicable to persons who, if this Act

had not been passed, would have been governed by the Madras Aliyasantana Act,

1949, (Madras Act 9 of 1949) or by the customary aliyasantana law with respect to

the matters for which provision is made in this Act.

one person is said to be a “cognate” of another if the two are related by blood or

adoption but not wholly through males.

(d) CUSTOM AND USAGE

The expressions “custom” and “usage” signify any rule which, having

been continuously and uniformly observed for a long time, has obtained the force of

law among Hindus in any local area, tribe, community, group or family.

Provided that the rule is certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public

policy: and

Provided further that in the case of a rule applicable only to a family it has not

been discontinued by the family.

(e) FULL BLOOD, HALF BLOOD AND UTERINE BLOOD

(i) two persons are said to be related to each other by full blood when they

are descended from a common ancestor by the same wife, and by half-blood when

they are descended from a common ancestor but by different wives.

(ii) two persons are said to be related to each other by uterine blood when

they are descended from a common ancestress but by different husbands.

Explanation. ―In this clause “ancestor” includes the father and “ancestress” the

mother.

(f) HEIR

It means any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property

of an intestate under this Act

(g) INTESTATE

A person is deemed to die intestate in respect of property of which he or she has not

made a testamentary disposition capable of taking effect.

(h) MARUMAKKATTAYAM LAW

It means the system of law applicable to persons―

(a) who, if this Act had not been passed, would have been governed by the

Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932 (Madras Act 22 of 1933); the Travancore

Nayar Act (2 of 1100K); the Travancore Ezhava Act (3 of 1100K); the Travancore

Nanjinad Vellala Act (6 of 1101K); the Travancore Kshatriya Act (7 of 1108K); the

Travancore Krishnanvaka Marumakkathayee (Act 7 of 1115K); the Cochin

Marumakkathayam Act (33 of 1113K); or the Cochin Nayar Act (29 of 1113K); with

respect to the matters for which provision is made in this Act; or

(b) who belong to any community, the members of which are largely

domiciled in the State of Travancore Cochin or Madras 1[as it existed immediately

before the 1st November, 1956], and who, if this Act had not been passed, would

have been governed with respect to the matters for which provision is made in this

Act by any system of inheritance in which descent is traced through the female line;

but does not include the aliyasantana law.

(i) NAMBUDRI LAW

It means the system of law applicable to persons who, if this Act had not been

passed, would have been governed by the Madras Nambudri Act, 1932 Madras Act

(21 of 1933); the Cochin Nambudri Act (17 of 111K); or the Travancore Malayala

Brahmin Act (3 of 1106K); with respect to the matters for which provision is made

in this Act.

(j) RELATED

It means related by legitimate kinship.

Provided that illegitimate children shall be deemed to be related to their mother

and to one another, and their legitimate descendants shall be deemed to be related

to them and to one another; and any word expressing relationship or denoting a

relative shall be construed accordingly.

Sec 3(2) provides that in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, words

importing the masculine gender shall not be taken to include females.

In M. Arumugam v. Ammani Ammal

, the issue was the interpretation of "Hindu

undivided family" in the context of a partition suit.: The Supreme Court clarified that

"Hindu undivided family" includes both the joint family and the properties held

(1985) 1 SCC 161

jointly by the family members.

Mangal Singh v. Rattno

, dealt with the interpretation of "agricultural land" in

Punjab under Hindu law.The Supreme Court held that the definition of "agricultural

land" must be interpreted based on the specific provisions of the local law applicable

to the area.

The case Bhagwat v. Gyan Chand

, involved the interpretation of the term "heir"

in the context of property succession.The Supreme Court clarified that the term

"heir" under the Act should be interpreted to include all persons entitled to inherit

property under the provisions of the Act.

4. OVERRIDING EFFECT OF ACT.

Sec 4(1) provides that save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, ―

(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part

of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to

have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;

(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act

shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions

contained in this Act.

(1967) 2 SCR 719

(2010) 5 SCC 746

In Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal

, the Court addressed the question whether the

Hindu Succession Act overrides Punjab's customary law. The Supreme Court ruled

that the Act overrides any customary laws in Punjab, ensuring uniformity in

succession laws for Hindus.

In Jagdish Chander v. State of Haryana ṣ

the issue was whether the Hindu

Succession Act overrides the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The

Supreme Court held that the Hindu Succession Act prevails over any conflicting

provisions in the Punjab Land Revenue Act regarding inheritance and succession.

In Sundari v. Laxmi

, the Supreme Court held that the Hindu Succession Act

supersedes local customs, ensuring a uniform application of succession laws.

CHAPTER II

INTESTATE SUCCESSION

General

5. ACT NOT TO APPLY TO CERTAIN PROPERTIES.

By virtue of sec 5 this Act shall not apply to―

(i) any property succession to which is regulated by the Indian Succession

Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), by reason of the provisions contained in section 21 of the

Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954);

(ii) any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or

(1977) 1 SCC 750

(2006) 10 SCC 614

agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Indian State with the Government of

India or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act;

(iii) the Valiamma Thampuran Kovilagam Estate and the Palace Fund

administered by the Palace Administration Board by reason of the powers conferred

by Proclamation (IX of 1124) dated 29th June, 1949, promulgated by the Maharaja

of Cochin.

2[6. DEVOLUTION OF INTEREST IN COPARCENARY PROPERTY

According to sec 6(1) on and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 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 the same manner as the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if

she had been a son;

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.

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any

disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of

property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.

Sec 6(2) provides that any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by

virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary

ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or

any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by

her by testamentary disposition.

According to sec 6(3) where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu

Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), his interest in the property of a

Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary

or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship,

and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a

partition had taken place and,―

(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;

(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they

would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the

surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and

deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time

of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-

deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

1. Omitted by Act 39 of 2005, s. 2 (w.e.f. 9-9-2005).

2. Subs. by s. 3, ibid., for section 6 (w.e.f. 9-9-2005).

Explanation. ―For the purposes of this sub-section, 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.

By virtue of sec 6(4) after the commencement of the Hindu Succession

(Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), no court shall recognize any right to proceed

against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his

father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation

under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such

debt.

Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), nothing contained in this

sub-section shall affect―

(a)the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as

the case may be; or

(b)any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such

right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same

manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu

Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) had not been enacted.

Explanation. ―For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson”

or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson,

as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the

Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005).

According to sec 6(5) nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition,

which has been affected before the 20th day of December, 2004.

Explanation. ―For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition

made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act,

1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.]

In Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal

,the Court dealt with the issue whether a son born after

the partition of HUF can claim a share in the property. The Supreme Court held that

a son born after the partition is not entitled to a share in the coparcenary property

already partitioned.

In Smt. Sitabai v. Ramchandra

,the Supreme Court ruled that an illegitimate son

does not have coparcenary rights and is only entitled to maintenance from the father.

In M. Yogendra v. Leelamma N. & Ors.

, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that

daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth after the 2005 amendment,

irrespective of their birth date.

7. DEVOLUTION OF INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY OF A TARWAD,

TAVAZHI, KUTUMBA, KAVARU OR ILLOM.

(1967) 3 SCR 153

(1970) 2 SCC 1

(2009) 15 SCC 184

By virtue of sec 7(1) when a Hindu to whom the marumakkattayam or nambudri

law would have applied if this Act had not been passed dies after the

commencement of this Act, having at the time of his or her death an interest in the

property of a tarwad, tavazhi or illom, as the case may be, his or her interest in the

property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be,

under this Act and not according to the marumakkattayam or nambudri law.

Explanation.―For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu in the

property of a tarwad, tavazhi or illom shall be deemed to be the share in the property

of the tarwad, tavazhi or illom, as the case may be, that would have fallen to him or

her if a partition of that property per capita had been made immediately before his or

her death among all the members of the tarwad, tavazhi or illom, as the case may be,

then living, whether he or she was entitled to claim such partition or not under the

marumakkattayam or nambudri law applicable to him or her, and such share shall be

deemed to have been allotted to him or her absolutely.

According to sec 7(2) when a Hindu to whom the aliyasantana law would have

applied if this Act had not been passed dies after the commencement of this Act,

having at the time of his or her death an undivided interest in the property of a

kutumba or kavaru, as the case may be, his or her interest in the property shall

devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act

and not according to the aliyasantana law.

Explanation.―For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu in the

property of a kutumba or kavaru shall be deemed to be the share in the property of

the kutumba or kavaru, as the case may be, that would have fallen to him or her if a

partition of that property per capita had been made immediately before his or her

death among all the members of the kutumba or kavaru, as the case may be, then

living, whether he or she was entitled to claim such partition or not under the

aliyasantana law, and such share shall be deemed to have been allotted to him or her

absolutely.

Sec 7(3) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when a

sthanamdar dies after the commencement of this Act, the sthanam property held by

him shall devolve upon the members of the family to which the sthanamdar

belonged and the heirs of the sthanamdar as if the sthanam property had been

divided per capita immediately before the death of the sthanamdar among himself

and all the members of his family then living,, and the shares falling to the members

of his family and the heirs of the sthanamdar shall be held by them as their separate

property.

Explanation. ―For the purposes of this sub-section, the family of a sthanamdar

shall include every branch of that family, whether divided or undivided, the male

members of which would have been entitled by any custom or usage to succeed to

the position of sthanamdar if this Act had not been passed.

The case Mst. Subhani v. Nawab

dealt with the inheritance rights of a Hindu male

who died intestate, leaving behind a widow and daughters.

The Supreme Court held that the property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves

equally among his widow and daughters.

In Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh

,the issue before the court was whether a brother's

son can inherit the property of a Hindu male dying intestate.

The Supreme Court ruled that the brother's son is not a legal heir under the Hindu

(1965) 2 SCR 496

(1982) 3 SCC 206

Succession Act and thus cannot inherit the property.

The case Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar

involved the devolution of the property of

a Hindu male dying intestate, focusing on the rights of his legal heirs.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the property should be distributed among the

legal heirs as per the provisions of the Act, ensuring an equitable division.

8. GENERAL RULES OF SUCCESSION IN THE CASE OF MALES.

According to sec 8 the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve

according to the provisions of this Chapter: ―

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the

Schedule;

(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the

relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;

of the deceased; and

(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.

In M. Arumugam v. Ammani Ammal

, the Supreme Court held that the

property of a Hindu male dying intestate should be distributed among his heirs

according to the order of succession specified in the Act.

(2001) 8 SCC 24

(1984) 2 SCC 243

In Chander Sen v. Chunni Lal

, the court examined whether a son inherits his

father's property as his individual property or as part of the HUF. The Supreme Court

ruled that the property inherited by a son from his father is his individual property

and not part of the HUF.

In Dhanistha Kalita v. Pulin Prasad Kalita

, the issue was the distribution of

property among the legal heirs of a Hindu male who died intestate. The Supreme

Court clarified the rules of succession, emphasizing the equitable distribution of

property among the heirs.

9. ORDER OF SUCCESSION AMONG HEIRS IN THE SCHEDULE.

Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously

and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be

preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to

those in the third entry; and so on in succession.

The case K. V. Narayanaswami v. K. V. Ramakrishna Iyer

dealt with the order of

succession among heirs as per the schedule under the Act. The Supreme Court held

that the closer heirs in the schedule exclude the more remote ones, ensuring a clear

order of succession.

(1986) 3 SCC 567

(2000) 10 SCC 193

(1965) 1 SCR 9

In Appasaheb v. Balchand

, the issue was the interpretation of the schedule in

determining the order of succession among the heirs. The Supreme Court clarified

that the schedule must be followed strictly to determine the order of succession,

giving precedence to the closer heirs.

In Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi

, the Supreme

Court ruled that the schedule should be applied to ensure that the property is

distributed among the heirs in a manner that respects the order of succession.

10. DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY AMONG HEIRS IN CLASS I OF

THE SCHEDULE.

Sec 10 provides that the property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in

class I of the Schedule in accordance with the following rules:―

Rule 1.―The intestate’s widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the

widows together, shall take one share.

Rule 2.―The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall

each take one share.

Rule 3.―The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased

daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share.

Rule 4.―The distribution of the share referred to in Rule 3—

(i) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased son shall be so made

(1961) 1 SCR 918

(1996) 4 SCC 76

that his widow (or widows together) and the surviving sons and daughters get equal

portions; and the branch of his pre-deceased sons gets the same portion;

(ii) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased daughter shall be so

made that the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions.

In Mallippeddy Seshaiah v. Nandendla Tulsamma

, the aspect of intestate

succession was addressed within the ambit of testamentary succession.

11. DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY AMONG HEIRS IN CLASS II OF

THE SCHEDULE.

According to sec 11 the property of an intestate shall be divided between the heirs

specified in any one entry in class II of the Schedule so that they, share equally.

12. ORDER OF SUCCESSION AMONG AGNATES AND COGNATES.

By virtue of sec 12 the order of succession among agnates or cognates, as the case

may be, shall be determined in accordance with the rules of preference laid down

hereunder: ―

Rule 1.―Of two heirs, the one who has fewer or no degrees of ascent is preferred.

Rule 2.―Where the number of degrees of ascent is the same or none, that heir

is preferred who has fewer or no degrees of descent.

Rule 3.―Where neither heir is entitled to be preferred to the other under Rule 1

or Rule 2 they take simultaneously.

AIR 2005 AP 221

13. COMPUTATION OF DEGREES.

According to sec 13(1) for the purposes of determining the order of succession

among agnates or cognates, relationship shall be reckoned from the intestate to the

heir in terms of degrees of ascent or degrees of descent or both, as the case may be.

Sec 13(2) provides that degrees of ascent and degrees of descent shall be computed

inclusive of the intestate.

By virtue of sec 13(3) every generation constitutes a degree either ascending or

descending.

14. PROPERTY OF A FEMALE HINDU TO BE HER ABSOLUTE

PROPERTY.

According to sec 14(1) any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired

before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner

thereof and not as a limited owner.

Explanation.―In this sub-section, “property” includes both movable and

immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a

partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any

person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill

or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever,

and also any such property held by her as stridhana immediately before the

commencement of this Act.

Sec 14(2) provides that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any

property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a

decree or order of a civil court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will

or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such

property.

In Punithavalli v. Ramalingam,

the court held that an estate acquired by a

female Hindu under sub-section 1 is absolute and cannot be invalidated or restricted

by any Hindu law text, rule, presumption, or legal fiction.

In Jose v. Ramakrishna Nair Radhakrishnan

, the court ruled that when a father

places his daughter in possession of property, she becomes the full owner once the

Act comes into force.

In Sadhu Singh v. Gurudwara Singh Narike

, the court found that if a male

Hindu die possessed of property after the Act's commencement, leaving his widow

as the sole heir, she inherits the property as a class 1 heir. In this scenario, section 14

of the Act does not apply to the succession after the Act's commencement, and the

widow inherits an absolute estate without invoking this section.

In Harish Chandra v. Triloki Singh

, the Supreme Court emphasized that the

expression "whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act"

indicates that section 14 has retrospective effect.

AIR 1970 SC 1730

AIR 2004 Ker 16

AIR 2006 SC 3282

AIR 1957 SC 444

15. GENERAL RULES OF SUCCESSION IN THE CASE OF FEMALE

HINDUS.

Sec 15(1) states that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve

according to the rules set out in section 16,―

(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-

deceased son or daughter) and the husband;

(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.

Sec 15(2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),―

(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall

devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the

children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in

sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and

(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her

father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased

(including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs

referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the

husband.

In Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh

, the Supreme Court ruled that the term "sons"

does not include step-sons.

In Shahaji Kisan Asme v. Sitaram Kondi Asme

, it was held that illegitimate

children of a son are not entitled to inherit the property of their grandparents.

In Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh,

the Court observed that even if a female Hindu with

limited ownership becomes a full owner by virtue of section 14 of the Act, the rules

of succession outlined in subsection (2) of section 15 can still be applied.

16. ORDER OF SUCCESSION AND MANNER OF DISTRIBUTION

AMONG HEIRS OF A FEMALE HINDU.

According to sec 16 the order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15

shall be, and the distribution of the intestate’s property among those heirs shall take

place according to the following rules, namely: ―

Rule 1.―Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one

entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the

same entry shall take simultaneously.

Rule 2.―If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased the intestate

leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate’s death, the children

AIR 1987 SC 1616

AIR 2010 Bom. 24

AIR 2002 SC 1

of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or

daughter would have taken if living at the intestate’s death.

Rule 3.―The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in

clauses (b), (d) and

(e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) of section 15 shall be in the same order

and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the

father’s or the mother’s or the husband’s as.

the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately

after the intestate’s death.

In Ram Kali v. Sohan Lal

,the Court discussed the scope of section 16 of the Hindu

Succession Act.

In Sathya Chandran Dutta v. Urmila Sundari Dassi

, the Court discussed the scope

and ambit of Section 16 of the Hindu Succession Act.

In Ramaswamy v. Surya Prakasa Rao

, the Court opined that, unless disproven, it

should be presumed that an adoption by a registered document is in accordance with

the provisions of the Act.

17. SPECIAL PROVISIONS RESPECTING PERSONS GOVERNED BY

MARUMAKKATTAYAM AND ATIYASANTANA LAWS.

By virtue of sec 17, the provisions of sections 8, 10, 15 and 23 shall have effect in

relation to persons who would have been governed by the marumakkattayam law or

aliyasantana law if this Act had not been passed as if―

AIR 1972 P&H 419

AIR 1970 SC 1714

1993 All India Hindu Law Reporter AP 219

(i) for sub-clauses (c) and (d) of section 8, the following had been substituted,

namely: ―

“(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon his

relatives, whether agnates or cognates.”;

(ii) for clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 15, the following had

been substituted, namely: ―

“(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-

deceased son or daughter) and the mother;

(b) secondly, upon the father and the husband;

(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the husband.”;

(iii) clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 15 had been omitted;

(iv) section 23 had been omitted.

The Act expressly stated in Section 2 of the Act includes all Hindus. It thus applies

all persons including those who were governed by Mitakshara School, Dayabhaga

School as well as those governed by 00000000

General provisions relating to succession

18. FULL BLOOD PREFERRED TO HALF BLOOD.

By virtue of sec 18 heirs related to an intestate by full blood shall be preferred to

heirs related by half blood, if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other

respect.

In Chunnilal v. Smt. Dullar & Ors

, the court held that in the case of devolution of

coparcenary property, the property will devolve in equal shares among the

coparceners, and the provisions of Section 18 of the Act are not applicable.

In Ram Singari Devi v. Govind Thakur

, the court observed that while interpreting

the section, the rule of preference applies in cases of conflicting claims between heirs

of the same degree or proximity of relation to the deceased. However, it is

inapplicable when the contesting parties are not related in the same degree of ascent

or descent.

19. MODE OF SUCCESSION OF TWO OR MORE HEIRS.

According to sec 19 if two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an

intestate, they shall take the property, ―

(a) save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, per capita and not per

stirpes; and

(b) as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.

In Parasuraman v. Purushotahaman and Co.

, the court held that a co-owner does

not have the authority to extend the period of limitation against the other co-owners

through any acknowledgment of liability or payment of interest or principal.

AIR 2007 All 202

AIR 2006 Pat 169

AIR 1977 Ker 132

20. RIGHT OF CHILD IN WOMB.

Sec 20 states that a child who was in the womb at the time of the death of an

interstate and who is subsequently born alive shall have the same right to inherit to

the intestate as if he or she had been born before the death of the intestate, and the

inheritance shall be deemed to vest in such a case with effect from the date of the

death of the intestate.

“It is by fiction or indulgence of the law that the rights of a child born in just

matrimonial are regarded by reference to the moment of conception and not of birth

and the unborn child in the womb, if born alive, is treated actually born for the

purpose for various purposes when it is for his benefit to be so treated.”

21. PRESUMPTION IN CASES OF SIMULTANEOUS DEATHS.

Sec 21 provides that where two persons have died in circumstances rendering it

uncertain whether either of them, and if so which, survived the other, then, for all

purposes affecting succession to property, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is

proved, that the younger survived the elder.

“The question whether any artificial presumption should be invoked or not has not

been free from difficulty when disputes have arisen about continuance of life and

time of death in case of persons, often members of the same family, perishing in a

common calamity in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived

Mulla, Hindu Law, Lexis Nexis (21st edition)

the other or others, and the rights of third parties are affected.”

In Setty v. Gyanchandrappa

, a defendant in a partition suit was murdered at

night alongside her foster daughter, to whom the defendant had bequeathed her

property through a will. The circumstances surrounding their deaths left it uncertain

who had died first. Consequently, the heirs of the foster daughter were ordered to be

brought onto the record of the partition suit, taking precedence over the defendant’s

sons, who claimed inheritance based on intestacy.

In Jayanilal v. Chhanalal

, it was established that the section applies to both

testamentary and intestate succession. In cases of communities governed by the

present Act, this section serves as a crucial proviso to Section 105(2) of the Indian

Succession Act. It was also noted that the section has retrospective effect, given that

the law of evidence is procedural in nature.

22. PREFERENTIAL RIGHT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY IN CERTAIN

CASES.

According to sec 22(1) where, after the commencement of this Act, an interest in any

immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her,

whether solely or in conjunction with others, devolves upon two or more heirs

specified in class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his

Mulla, Hindu Law, Lexis Nexis (21st edition), p.1224

AIR 1970 Mys. 87

AIR 1968 Guj 212

or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential

right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred.

According to sec 22(2) the consideration for which any interest in the property of

the deceased may be transferred under this section shall, in the absence of any

agreement between the parties, be determined by the court on application being

made to it in this behalf, and if any person proposing to acquire the interest is not

willing to acquire it for the consideration so determined, such person shall be liable

to pay all costs of or incident to the application.

By virtue of sec 22(3) if there are two or more heirs specified in class I of the

Schedule proposing to acquire any interest under this section, that heir who offers the

highest consideration for the transfer shall be preferred.

Explanation. ―In this section, “court” means the court within the limits of whose

jurisdiction the immovable property is situate or the business is carried on, and

includes any other court which the State Government may, by notification in the

Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

“This section appears to have been thought necessary as an antidote to the

inconvenient effects sometimes resulting from transfer to an outsider by a co-heir of

his or her interest in property simultaneously inherited along with other co-heirs. The

right declared by the section is analogous to the right of pre-emption which tends to

raise clogs and fetters on the full sale and purchase of property and is in general

regarded as oppose to equity and good conscience.”

In In Dwijabrata Das v. Debabrata Das.

, it was observed by the Court that a

claim under this provision cannot be upheld if it is established that the property in

question is capable of being partitioned.

In Bhola Nath v. Santhosh Prakash

, it was determined by the Court that the

section does not apply to property that devolves by survivorship, as its scope and

applicability are limited to cases of inheritance only.

Mulla, Hindu Law, Lexis Nexis (21st edition),p.1226

AIR 1994 Gau 88

AIR 1975 AP 336

In Jeevan Ram v. Lachmidevi

, the Court held that the section does not cover

interests in agricultural land of an intestate.

23. [Special provision respecting dwelling-houses.] ―Omitted by the Hindu

Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), s. 4 (w.e.f. 9-9-2005).

24. [Certain windows re-marrying may not inherit as windows.] ―Omitted by s.

5, ibid. (w.e.f. 9-9- 2005).

25. MURDERER DISQUALIFIED.

Sec 25 states that a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder

shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any

other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or

abetted the commission of the murder.

In G.S. Sadasiva v. M.C. Srinivasan

, it was held by the Court that granting a

share in the deceased's property to an individual is appropriate when a criminal court

has determined that the individual is not a murderer.

26. CONVERT’S DESCENDANTS DISQUALIFIED.

Sec 26 provides that where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a Hindu

has ceased or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion, children born

to him or her after such conversion and their descendants shall be disqualified from

inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives, unless such children or

descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens.

AIR 1981 Raj 16

AIR 2001 Kant 453

27. SUCCESSION WHEN HEIR DISQUALIFIED.

By virtue of sec 27, if any person is disqualified from inheriting any property under

this Act, it shall devolve as if such person had died before the intestate.

28. DISEASE, DEFECT, ETC., NOT TO DISQUALIFY.

According to sec 28 no person shall be disqualified from succeeding to any property

on the ground of any disease, defect or deformity, or save as provided in this Act, on

any other ground whatsoever.

Escheat

29. FAILURE OF HEIRS.

Sec 29 provides that if an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her

property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve

on the Government; and the Government shall take the property subject to all the

obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.

CHAPTER III TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION

30. TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION.1***

Sec 30 states that any Hindu may dispose of by will or other testamentary disposition

any property, which is capable of being so 2[disposed of by him or by her], in

accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), or

any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus.

Explanation.―The interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property

or the interest of a member of a tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru in the

property of the tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru shall, notwithstanding

anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, be

deemed to be property capable of being disposed of by him or by her within the

meaning of this 3[section.]

4* * * * *

1. The brackets and figure “(1)” omitted by Act 58 of 1960, s. 3 and the Second

Schedule (w.e.f. 26-12-1960).

2. Subs. by Act 39 of 2005, s. 6, for “disposed of by him” (w.e.f. 9-9-2005).

3. Subs. by Act 56 of 1974, s. 3 and the Second Schedule for “sub-section” (w.e.f.

20-12-1974). 4. Omitted by Act 78 of 1956, s. 29 (w.e.f. 21-12-1956).

CHAPTER IV

REPEALS

31. [Repeals.] ―Rep. by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1960 (58 of 1960),

s. 2 and the First Schedule (w.e.f. 26-12-1960).

THE SCHEDULE

(See section 8)

HEIRS IN CLASS I AND CLASS II

Class I

Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-

deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter;

widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son;

daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre-deceased son

of a pre-deceased son 1[son of a predeceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter;

daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-

deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a

pre-deceased son].

Class II

I. Father.

II. (1) Son’s daughter’s son, (2) son’s daughter’s daughter, (3) brother, (4) sister.

III. (1) Daughter’s son’s son, (2) daughter’s son’s daughter, (3) daughter’s

daughter’s son, (4) daughter’s daughter’s daughter.

IV. (1) Brother’s son, (2) sister’s son, (3) brother’s daughter, (4) sister’s daughter.

V. Father’s father; father’s mother.

VI. Father’s widow; brother’s widow.

VII. Father’s brother; father’s sister.

VIII. Mother’s father; mother’s mother.

IX. Mother’s brother; mother’s sister.

Explanation. ―In this Schedule, references to a brother or sister do not include

references to a brother or sister by uterine blood.

1. Added by Act 39 of 2005, s. 7 (w.e.f. 9-9-2005).