.jpg)
Amritha Lakshmi V,
School of Excellence In Law (TNDALU)
INTRODUCTION
The original Hindu law of inheritance has immensely molded the structure of Indian social relations, whose foundation is in the holy Hindu scripture as well as ancient customs. Over the years, these laws have evolved to adjust to changing economic conditions while still preserving cultural norms. Originally, of course, these laws were intended to create a patriarchal society and ensure the continuation of male-line inheritance in family property. The reason behind this was the social dictate of ancient India, where the family or clan was considered the first organization for all social activities, and rights titans were expanded from that center. There were so many laws regarding it. There were taboos and rules and regulations in many facets, such as an age-old ritual associated with menstruation, whereby a menstruating woman was regarded as impure and untouchable, which was incorporated into customary law in the Northwest Provinces in the early twentieth century.
HINDU INHERITANCE LAW: ANCIENT FOUNDATION
Vedic and Smriti Periods
The Hindu traditional laws of inheritance have its roots in the Vedic and Smriti periods marked by rigid norms indicating paternalism to families, heritage, and property. Succession among Hindus was governed by foundational principles of the Vedas, Smirtis and Dharmashastras.
Dayabhagya and Mitakshara
This school was divided into two, it developed as Dayabaga and Mitakshara schools of thoughts. The Dayabaga School, common in Bengal favored exclusive ownership and equal inheritance among sons. The Mitakshara School, prevalent in most other parts of India would be against partitioning parents' property and supported male primogeniture thereby upholding hierarchical practices related to inheritance.
CLASSIC INHERITANCE PRINCIPLES
The Role of Primogeniture
Traditional Hindu inheritance law articulated by primogeniture, which allowed on eldest male child to inherit all the properties. This was done to ensure that the family lineage continues and ancestral property remains undivided
Limited Rights of Women
Under classical Hindu law, women had limited inheritance rights. Daughters usually only got some rights of ancestral property, provided they were through gifts (sridhan), while widows often faced heavily circumscribed access to their husband's properties as patriarchy norms.
HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHT TO PROPERTY ACTS
Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937
This Act represented a crucial turning point in the struggle for gender equality within Hindu inheritance law. It sought to protect widow's rights by allowing a surviving wife the right of dower, that is an interest for life in certain real property. While well-intentioned, the Act helped widows more than it broke new ground for daughters' inheritance rights.
The Hindu Women's Rights to Property (Extension of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1947 act
The Hindu Women's Rights to Properly (Extension ot Agricultural Land) Act, 1947 was enacted with the a view of empowering women economically and socially by making provision for facilities in agricultural lands.
HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 AND AMENDMENTS
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 changed Hindu inheritance law. It set up uniform rules for succession and got rid of gender-based differences in inheritance rights. This law aimed to fix long-standing gender bias and bring about gender equality in property inheritance for Hindus.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, brought major changes to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956:
•Equal Coparcenary Right: The amendment gave daughters the same status as coparceners by birth in a joint Hindu family property. This meant they had the same rights and duties as sons.
•Retrospective Application: The amendment made it clear that it applied to the past. This ensured that daughters had equal rights even if their father died before the Amendment took effect.
EVOLUTION OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACTS
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 sets out the rules for inheritance between states for Hindus. This law brought big changes to how Hindus pass down property giving women new rights they didn't have before. In the past, laws like the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act gave women some ownership rights, but these were limited. Widows could get a small share of their late husband's property and ask for it to be split up, while daughters got almost nothing. Later laws such as the Hindu Women's Rights to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act (Madras Act 26 of 1947), made these rights broader. We can see this in the case of L. Bappu Ayyar vs. Rangananayaki& others.[i]
The Hindu Succession Act 1956, brought in a complete and standard system for inheritance. This system applies to people under the Mithakshara and Dayabaga schools. It also covers those who used to follow Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana, and Nambudri Laws. Section 6 of the Act talks about how a male Hindu's interest in coparcenary property passes down. It also accepts the rule of property passing to surviving coparceners. The Hindu Succession Act 1956, doesn't work backwards in time. But Section 14(1) makes an exception. It gives full rights to property a female Hindu got even before the act started. Later changes, like those to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 27/5/1976, have dealt with making children of null and questionable marriages legal. Besides State Laws about giving daughters coparcenary rights, the Hindu Succession Act changed with Amendment Act 39 of 2005.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS AND LANDMARK CASES
Court rulings following the Amendment have played a crucial role in interpreting and expanding inheritance rights:
Prakash vs Phullvati (2016): The Supreme Court clarified that daughters have equal inheritance rights as sons in ancestral property, regardless of when the father passed away.[ii]
Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar (2018): The Supreme Court ruled that daughters have coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of whether the father was alive on the date of the 2005 Amendment.3
Vineeta Sharama v Rakesh Sharama (2020): The Supreme Court reaffirmed daughter’s equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property, irrespective of their father’s survival on the date of the Amendment.4
THE EVOLUTION OF HINDU WOMEN'S PROPERTY RIGHTS
Under the Traditional Hindu law
Under traditional Hindu law, women's rights to ancestral property were often limited to gifts (Stridhan) and widows' maintenance. These restrictions revealed the patriarchal nature of inheritance practices, which favoured male lineage and control over family assets.
Legislative Reform and Progress.
Women's property rights were significantly reformed, particularly through the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and its subsequent amendment in 2005. These Acts sought to empower women by granting them equal rights to inherit ancestral property, challenging traditional patriarchal norms, and advocating for gender equality in inheritance.
Contemporary Importance
The recognition of women's inheritance rights is still evolving, influenced by judicial interpretations and societal changes. Legal reforms have gradually expanded women's property rights, promoting financial independence and social equity.
CONCLUSION
The historical evolution of Hindu inheritance law reflects a transition from patriarchal practices to inclusive legal reforms aimed at achieving gender equality. From ancient texts to modern legislation, these laws have adapted to changing societal norms, emphasising the importance of legal and cultural change in fostering a more equitable society.
The journey of Hindu inheritance law from its ancient roots to contemporary reforms illustrates a dynamic process of societal evolution. While challenges remain in achieving full gender equality in inheritance practices, on-going legal reforms and societal awareness are paving the way towards greater equity and justice for all individuals under the law.
REFERENCE
[i]L.Bappu Ayar &Anr. Vs Renganayaki&Ors., A.I.R 1955 Mad. 394, 1968 M.L.W. 349
[ii]Prakash v. Phullvati, AIR 2016 SC 769.
3 AIR 2018 Supreme Court 721, 2018 (3) SCC 343
4 AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3717, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 676
Comments