The Hindu

Succession Act, 1956

along with the
amendments
History
• HSA came into force, 17th June, 1956.
• Comprehensive and uniform scheme of intestate succession for Hindus in India.
• Traditionally, disputes among family decided by the local panchayats and were
not affected by the British courts (dealing with civil and criminal matters).
However, cases with rise in cases w.r.t. revenue and property, families were
then going to courts – into unfamiliar technical rigid settings, where strangers
decided on disputes in an unknown language.
• The priests used to know about religious rites but were not legal luminaries and
failed at extracting rules from the text. Thus, courts relied on just a few
available and translated texts, thereby excluding a number of untranslated
and/or unavailable texts.
Codification and how it came about
• Classical rules + several legislations + innumerable customs + conflicting judicial
precedents = a maze of legal regime necessitating codification.
• Hindu Law Committee – January 1941 to examine 5 Bills relating to amendments
proposed in the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937.
• The Hindu Law Committee recommended codification of the Hindu Law in stages,
starting with Inheritance and Marriage.
• March, 1942 – Two draft laws – Succession and Marriage. Hindu Law Committee
ceased. Decided that all aspects would be codified by 1946.
• New Committee appointed in 1944 – for developing a new Hindu Code.
• The code was drafted after extensive touring and put before the public for
opposition. The opposition was diverse and strong.
Key Features - From Poonam Pradhan Saxena
• 16 features: 1956- September 2005
i. Amends and modifies Hindu Classical Law
ii. Uniform and elaborate rules for intestate succession.
iii. No limited ownership or Hindu Women (only absolute)
iv. Two separate schemes for male and female intestate succession.
v. Changes the character of the property inherited from male ascendants to ‘Separate
Property’
vi. Daughters and their children become primary heirs (placed above male collaterals).
Marital status of daughter irrelevant.
vii. Eligibility based not only on consanguinity but also affinity.
viii. Rights created irrespective of the number of generations between the intestate and heir.
ix. Testamentary Succession: Both male and female can will away the entirety of the property to
anyone.
x. Modifies Mitakshara succession such that the death of a Hindu Male (intestate) would lead to a
presumption that he asked for a partition before he died, his share determined and thereafter distributed
under the rules of intestate succession.
xi. Disqualifications based on mental or physical deformities – removed. Conversion does not disqualify the
one who converts but the generations after him. Public policy - the murderer of an intestate is disqualified
(Section 25) and certain remarrying widows (when such marriage occurs before the succession is opened)
are also disqualified.
xii. Widow – primary heir and cannot be divested based on ‘unchastity’.
xiii. The multilateral system in southern India has been affected and almost abolished due to the uniform
scheme.
xiv. The Dasiputra is now just like any other illegitimate child – without any property rights.
xv. Full blood relationships are preferred over half blood ones. Relegated those related through uterine blood
to a fairly low position.
xvi. Posthumous children protected.
The Section 6 Saga
• Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, 1978 SC
• Prakash and Ors. v. Phulavati and Ors., SC 2015
• Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, 2016 SC
• Danamma Suman Surpur v. Amar, Supreme Court, 2018
• Sharma v. Sharma, 2020 SC
Notional Partition
• What?
• Why? – Two-fold purpose
• How does it manifest?
1. Pre 1956
2. Post 1956
3. Post 2005 amendment
Succession to the property of a Male Intestate
person
Sections 6-8
Rules from Sections 9 – 13
Cop. Property of intestate Hindu Male
Rights to property of a Hindu Woman
Classical Law
Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act (1937)
Hindu Succession Act (1956)
Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act (2005)
Section 14 Hindu Succession Act
Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property.―
(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.
(2) 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.
Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai, AIR
1987 SC1493
• Issue: A Hindu woman regains the possession of her land after the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 in which she had limited estate as an owner before.
Whether she will become the full owner of the said land or have limited
ownership as transferred to her by the alienee.?
Jagannathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam Pillai, AIR
1987 SC1493
• Issue: A Hindu woman regains the possession of her land after the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 in which she had limited estate as an owner before. Whether she will
become the full owner of the said land or have limited ownership as transferred to her
by the alienee.?
• Decision: A Hindu woman is entitled to become an absolute owner of the property
which she had alienated, upon its reconveyance to her by the transferee after the
enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by virtue Section14(1).
• The instance of alienation by a trustee or an executor is considered, if an alienee
reconveys back the property to the executor, it means that the alienor is barred from
holding the property in any other capacity. Hence the alienor and alienee can entirely
nullify their agreement. The widow can become the full owner of the said property.
 Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha
Reddi, AIR 1977 SC 1944
• Issue: Widow – who filed a petition for maintenance. Brother – in – law - should
enjoy during her life time certain properties given to her and on her death those
properties should revert.
 Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha
Reddi, AIR 1977 SC 1944
• Issue: Widow – who filed a petition for maintenance. Brother – in – law - should
enjoy during her life time certain properties given to her and on her death those
properties should revert.
Decision: Right to maintenance is a pre-existing right which existed in the Hindu law
long before the passing of the Act of 1937 or the Act of 1946, and is, therefore, a pre-
existing right.
• 14(1) talks about property acquired in lieu of maintenance and Section 14(2) should
be viewed as a proviso. It shouldn’t ruin the main intention behind the first provision.
It should not, in any way, take away the protection guaranteed under clause (1).
• Test – does the instrument recognize a pre-existing right or create a new right
Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Kaliaperumal, AIR 2014
Mad 185
• Issue: Whether a consent/settlement deed issued in favour of a first wife, giving
her a limited estate, be challenged by the second wife on behalf of her minor
son, despite s.14(2)? The deed stated that the property would revert to the
husband upon first wife’s death, but husband died before first wife, she then sold
property to Kaliaperumal.
Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Kaliaperumal, AIR 2014
Mad 185
• Issue: Whether a consent/settlement deed issued in favour of a first wife, giving
her a limited estate, be challenged by the second wife on behalf of her minor son,
despite s.14(2)? The deed stated that the property would revert to the husband
upon first wife’s death, but husband died before first wife, she then sold property
to Kaliaperumal.
• Decision: The first wife was compelled to part with companion and when there is proof that the
reason for this is no children, the related act of husband marrying again amounts to cruelty and
hence the execution of settlement in her favour is towards her pre-existing right to
maintenance. When property is given to female Hindu, towards her maintenance, her right of
enjoyment over that property on the date of coming into force of the HSA - the limited estate
will be enlarged into absolute interest. S.14 (1) of the HSA would apply. Hence, she becomes
absolute owner despite limitations and restrictions in the instrument. S.14(2) is a mere proviso.
Jayalakshmi Ammal v. Kaliaperumal, AIR 2014
Mad 185
“…Now, it is necessary to look into the object of Section 14. The following are the principles that
emerges on the object of Section 14:
1. That the provisions of Section 14 of the 1956 Act must be liberally construed in order to advance the
object of the Act which is to enlarge the limited interest possessed by a Hindu widow which was in
consonance with the changing temper of the times;
2. That sub-section (2) of Section 14 does not refer to any transfer which merely recognizes a pre-
existing right without creating or conferring a new title on the widow;
3. That the Act of 1956 has made revolutionary and far-reaching changes in the Hindu society and every
attempt should be made to carry out the spirit of the Act which has undoubtedly supplied a long felt need
and tried to do away with the individual distinction between a Hindu male and female in matters of
intestate succession;
4. That sub-section (2) of Section 14 is merely a proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 and has to be
interpreted as a proviso and not in a manner so as to destroy the effect of the main provision…”
Jupudy Parda Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna SC,
CivilAppeal No. 375 of 2007 decided on 6th Nov 2015
Issue: Whether the life-interest granted to a Hindu woman in a Will,
enlarge to an absolute right under s.14(1) of the HSA despite s.14(2) and
the Will is silence on the property being given in lieu of maintenance? (no
other property was given to the women)
Jupudy Parda Sarathy v. Pentapati Rama Krishna SC,
Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2007 decided on 6th Nov 2015
Issue: Whether the life-interest granted to a Hindu woman in a Will, enlarge to an absolute right
under s.14(1) of the HSA despite s.14(2) and the Will is silence on the property being given in lieu
of maintenance? (no other property was given to the women)
Decision: Though no specific word has been mentioned in Exhibit A-2 that in lieu of maintenance
life interest has been created in favour Veeraraghavamma (the wife), in our opinion in whatever
form a limited interest is created in her favour who was having a pre-existing right of
maintenance, the same has become an absolute right by the operation of Section 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act.
Court also relies on cases we read - Vaddeboyina Tulasamma v. Vaddeboyina Sesha Reddi. Even
in the absence of express words in a Will that life interest granted to her is in lieu of maintenance,
if the same can be gathered from the nature of arrangements made in the will. S.(14) (1) applies to
this pre-existing right of maintenance, enlarging her rights to an absolute ownership.
Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC
628
Issue: Criminal Breach of by a husband for the misappropriation of
stridhan. Nature of of Stridhan during coverture. Allegation under
allegation under Section 405 and 406 of the IPC for misappropriation of
stridhan.
 Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC
628
Issue: Criminal Breach of by a husband for the misappropriation of stridhan. Nature of of Stridhan
during coverture.
Decision: The stridhan property of a married woman cannot acquire the character of a joint
property of both the spouses as soon as she enters her matrimonial home so as to eliminate the
application of section 406 IPC. The position of stridhan of a Hindu married woman's property
during coverture is absolutely clear and unambiguous; she is the absolute owner of such property
and can deal with it in any manner she likes-She may spend the whole of it or give it away at her
own pleasure by gift or will without any reference to her husband. The entrustment to the husband
of the stridhan property is just like something which the wife keeps in a bank and can withdraw any
amount when ever she likes without any hitch or hindrance. .. Held liable under S. 405 and S. 406
Vinod Kumar Sethi & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1982 Punjab 372 overruled – “stridhan
property of a married woman becomes a joint property as soon as she enters her matrimonial
home.”
 Section 15 Hindu Succession Act
15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.—
(1) 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;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) 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 to
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.
Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh, AIR 2002 SC 1
• Issue: Property of a married Hindu female, no children, dying intestate
will devolve as pe 15(1) or 15(2), the said property was inherited from
her mother.
• Decision: The source from which she inherits the property is always
important and that would govern the situation. Only heirs of the father
can inherit the property which was inherited by a female from her father
or mother as per Section 15(2).
 Omprakash v. Radhacharan, 2009 (7) SCALE
51
• Issue: Separate property of a Hindu Female Intestate Widow, lived with in laws
for a few months. Whether the separate property of an intestate widow will
devolve to her husband’s heirs or upon her parents?
 Omprakash v. Radhacharan, 2009 (7) SCALE
51
• Issue: Separate property of a Hindu Female Intestate Widow, lived with in laws for a few
months. Whether the separate property of an intestate widow will devolve to her husband’s
heirs or upon her parents?
• Decision: If the contention raised by Mr. Choudhury is to be accepted, we will have to
interpret sub-section (1) of Section 15 in a manner which was not contemplated by the
Parliament. The Act does not put an embargo on a female to execute a will. Sub-section (1)
of Section 15 would apply only in a case where a female Hindu has died intestate. In such a
situation, the normal rule of succession as provided for by the statute, in our opinion, must
prevail.
• Separate property is governed by Section 15(1) of the HSA and property will therefore go
to the husband’s heirs of an intestate widow.
Law Commission Report 207
Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S.
WadhwaMANU/MH/1869/2012
Facts of Suit No. 1 –
Maternal Aunt v. Paternal Aunt ---- Sec 8 + Entry VII & IX (Class II
Heirs)
Facts of Suit No. 2 –
Sister v. Brother in law ---- Sec 15(1) + Sec 15(2) + Section 16

Issue – Constitutional Challenge to Section 8 and 15

Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S.
WadhwaMANU/MH/1869/2012
The discrimination that obviously prevails is not denied; it is justified.
Justification is patriarchy at the center-stage. It is argued by the learned
Additional Solicitor General Mr. Setalwad that a Hindu family is essentially
based upon family ties in one's patriarchal family. He argued that the woman,
upon marriage, goes into the family of her husband; the converse is not true. A
woman gives up her maternal / paternal ties upon her marriage assumes marital
ties. Hence, intestate succession for Hindus takes into account this ground reality
and is the other reason for the difference is the family ties are sought to be
maintained and strengthened by the distinction in the rules of succession relating
to Hindu males and Hindu females aside from their sex. Para 64
 Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S.
WadhwaMANU/MH/1869/2012
The discrimination that obviously prevails is not denied; it is justified. Justification is
patriarchy at the center-stage. It is argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General
Mr. Setalwad that a Hindu family is essentially based upon family ties in one's
patriarchal family. He argued that the woman, upon marriage, goes into the family of
her husband; the converse is not true. A woman gives up her maternal / paternal ties
upon her marriage assumes marital ties. Hence, intestate succession for Hindus takes
into account this ground reality and is the other reason for the difference is the family
ties are sought to be maintained and strengthened by the distinction in the rules of
succession relating to Hindu males and Hindu females aside from their sex. Para 64
Ms. Iyer contends – Class I and Class II heirs, Sec 8 and 15 – gender discrimination
Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S.
WadhwaMANU/MH/1869/2012
Decision:
The provisions in Sections 8 and 15 show discrimination between Hindu males and females. They show
discrimination only on the ground of gender. The family unit or the tie may be a justification, but the
discrimination is not upon family ties. The classification made is not upon family ties. The classification is
wholly and only between males and females. The female acquiring property by her own skill and exertion
would deprive herself of allowing it to succeed to her own heirs being her mother and father or their heirs in
preference to the heirs of the husband under Section 15(1)(b) as was the lot of the Petitioners in the case of
Omprakash Vs. Radhacharan MANU/SC/0728/2009 : 2010 (1) All MR 453 in which the Constitutional
Validity was not brought up for consideration. Years of toil and skill would, therefore, be watered down as
would be seen in Suit No. 86 of 2000. Conversely a Hindu female who would otherwise hope to succeed to an
estate of another Hindu female as an heir would receive a setback from the distant relatives of the husband of
the deceased not even known to her or contemplated by her to be her competitors except upon claiming
precedence as class II heirs under Section 8 or as preferential heirs under section 15(1) (b) as in the Suit No.
48 of 2005. Para 148.