INTRODUCTION
In our Indian society, women are given a significant position like that of a Goddess. However, they have always been denied their rights and equal opportunities as compared to men. One of the main reasons for this inferiority status is the patriarchal system prevalent in our country. Earlier, the succession was based on the principle of survivorship. On the death of a HUF member, his share in the property was passed to the surviving coparceners. However, women were not at all considered successors for a share in the property of the Hindu Joint Family (HUF). Only males were eligible to become coparceners and women were denied this status. The arising property disputes were settled based on customary practices.
PRE-INDEPENDENCE LEGISLATIONS
The Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, of 1929 was the first codified law that provided property rights to Indian women. It granted the inheritance rights to three female heirs:
- Son’s daughter
- Daughter’s daughter
- Sister
Then the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, of 1937 was enacted which allowed the widows to get an equal share in the property of the deceased along with their sons. Unfortunately, the widows were entitled to share in just a limited estate. In the case of Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi, the court denied a share in agricultural land to a widow as it was considered that the agricultural land didn’t fall within the ambit of the act.
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT 1956
After the enactment of our constitution, women were granted equal status and rights in our society. The Constitution of India provides for the fundamental rights that ensure equality, freedom, and dignity of an individual regardless of their gender. Article 14 of the Constitution provided for the equality of all before the law. Article 15 authorizes the Indian government to take affirmative action and protect the interests of women and oppressed classes. Also, article 21 provides the right to live with dignity and grants personal liberty to all.
This positive change established the need for legislation to provide equal opportunity for women in matters related to the succession of property. Subsequently, the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was enacted. The act provided inheritance rights to the daughters in their father’s estate. Now, women became eligible to claim partition and possession of ancestral and self-acquired paternal property. However, this act did not confer the coparcenary status on Hindu women.
AMENDMENT OF 2005
In the Law Commission’s 174th Report, the suggestion was made to amend Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. According to it, the coparcenary system excludes women, which results in grave injustice and violates the provisions of our constitution under Articles 14, 15, and 21. Thereafter, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, of 2005 was enacted. The following were the main changes introduced by the Amendment Act:
- Section 6 of the act is amended and now, women are also conferred with the coparcenary status.
- Section 23 of the act which disentitled the Hindu females to ask for partition in case of the dwelling house was also repealed.
- Section 24 of the act was also repealed, which denied the right to inherit the husband’s property on re-marriage.
- Under Section 30 of the act, the words ‘disposed of by him’ are substituted by ‘disposed of by him or her’. The provision is made gender-neutral.
In the case of Prakash v. Phulvati, the question regarding the retrospective application of the New Amendment Act of 2005 arose. The petitioner in this case argued that she was entitled to acquire the paternal property after the death of his father in 1988. The Court partly allowed her suit. Then, she appealed to the High Court to claim her rights under the 2005 amendments of the Hindu Succession Act. She argued that the reason for the introduction of the amendment was to eliminate the inequalities in the inheritance rights of males and females. The High Court ruled in favour of her but the apex court overruled the decision of the High Court. The apex court held that if it is not explicitly stated in the legislation that it will have a retrospective application then the legislation shall be given a prospective application only.
In the case of Danamma v. Amar Singh, the respondents argued that the daughters born before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 could not be considered as the coparceners under the new amendment of 2005. The court observed that if the father died before the amendment act and a suit is pending before the court then the daughter shall be conferred with the share in the property and would be considered as the coparceners.
CURRENT SCENARIO: VINEETA SHARMA’S CASE
Vineeta Sharma’s case is a landmark judgment concerning the rights of a daughter in her paternal property. The following are the details of the case:
Facts: The father of Vineeta Sharma died in 1999, before the enactment of the 2005 amendment act. She had a widowed mother and three brothers. One of her brothers died (unmarried) in 2001. She filed the suit to claim one-fourth of the share in her father’s property.
Trial Court and High Court’s Verdict: The trial court granted her one-seventh of the share in the paternal property. After this, the High Court granted a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) and 134A of the Indian Constitution because the apex Court had already given contradictory decisions in Phulvati’s and Danamma’s cases. Then the matter reached the apex court for determination.
Supreme Court’s Verdict: The matter was referred to a three-judge bench of the apex court to decide regarding the retrospective application of the Amendment Act of 2005. The Court observed that the inheritance rights of daughters when the father dies intestate are equal to that of the sons. The Court believed that the marital status of a daughter does not affect her inheritance rights. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, Justice Arun Mishra (on behalf of the bench) on the 11th of August 2020 gave the following verdict:
- The coparcenary status is conferred on a person by birth so if even the daughter is born before or after the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, they would be granted equal inheritance rights just like sons.
- The inheritance rights can be claimed by daughters with effect from 09th September 2005 but this right shall not affect any partition or alienation that has taken place before 20th December 2004 otherwise, it would become very difficult to readdress all the previous cases.
- The court further emphasized that it is not necessary that the father must be alive on 09th September 2005 for the daughter to claim the inheritance rights.
- Daughters would be entitled to an equal share in coparcenary property in pending proceedings before any Court or in an appeal.
- A plea of partition solely based on oral evidence cannot be accepted.
After delivering this verdict, the apex court directed all the subordinate courts to dispose of the pending suits in the next six months according to the principles laid down in the instant case. The Court further overruled the decision given in Phulvati’s case and Mangammal v. TB Raju’s case. The verdict of this court in Dammama’s case was also partly overruled.
INHERITANCE RIGHTS IN MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, AND PARSI LAWS
In the case of Muslims, Inheritance rights are governed by Muslim personal laws which are not codified. A person becomes entitled to inherit the property only after the death of the ancestor. The Muslim laws do not entitle a person by birth, to the right to inherit. Also, Muslim laws provide the right to inheritance in ancestral property to both men and women. However, the males are entitled to more share than females as the women receive Mehr and maintenance from their husbands and other males.
The Indian Succession Act, of 1925 governs the inheritance laws for Christians and Parsis, in case of intestate succession. The males and females are entitled to an equal share of their paternal property. But this provision applies only after the death of the father or mother. No inheritance rights based on birth are provided to them.
CONCLUSION
In the Mitakshara law, women were excluded from inheritance of the property. Some legislations were introduced by Britishers to provide property rights to widows and female heirs. Then, the Hindu Succession Act, of 1956 was introduced to provide inheritance rights to daughters. Further, in 2005 the act was amended to confer coparcenary status on women and provide them with the same rights, duties, and liabilities as provided to the males. However, the legislation came with questions related to its applicability in different scenarios. The apex court gave contradictory viewpoints in some cases making the issue more complex. Finally, these questions were addressed in the landmark case of Vineeta Sharma. Now, the daughters are granted equal inheritance rights just like the sons under the Hindu laws.
Authored By- Leezer Kaur, Army School of Law, Mohali
