Ramified Property Rights of a Hindu Female

Introduction

Women still encounter major obstacles when trying to exercise their rights to inheritance and property, even in the face of tremendous global progress toward gender equality. A complex interaction of sociocultural, legal, and economic factors is the reason why this issue still exists. These obstacles are frequently ingrained in discriminatory legal frameworks, patriarchal norms, and customs that give preference to male inheritance and property ownership. Because of this, women are frequently denied their legal access to property, undermining their independence and financial security as well as sustaining cycles of poverty and gender inequality.

Although as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, women had been given absolute ownership over their own property, i.e., Stridhan. However, men were involved in the management of that property.

Women’s rights to property and inheritance are especially problematic in areas where statutory laws are heavily influenced by customary law, creating contradictions and difficulties with enforcement. Moreover, institutional frameworks frequently faced several challenges to adequately support legal reforms aimed at improving women’s property rights, which limits their effectiveness.

However, substantial legal reforms over the past several decades have progressively strengthened women’s inheritance rights, though significant gaps between formal legal equality and practical implementation persist in many jurisdictions. The 174th Report of India, Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law (Law Com. No. 174, 2000) of the Law Commission of India also recommended adopting these reforms in the Hindu Succession Act.

Therefore, women may obtain property rights through:

• Stridhan
• As a coparcener
• By self-acquisition
• Inheritance from parental property
• Inheritance from a husband’s property
• Maintenance

Part I: Stridhan

Meaning and Definition

The word “Stridhan” is derived from Stri, i.e. woman, and Dhana, i.e. property. It literally means “woman’s property.” However, all property acquired by her is not Stridhana. Whether a particular kind of property is Stridhana or not depends on:

• The source from which the property was acquired
• Her status at the time of acquisition (maidenhood, coverture, or widowhood)
• The school of Hindu law to which she belongs

Sources of Stridhan

A Hindu female may acquire property from diverse sources. Several descriptions of property that may be lawfully acquired by a Hindu female include:

Source of Acquisition	Description
1. Gifts and bequests from relations	Property received from relatives.
2. Gifts and bequests from strangers	Property received from non-relatives.
3. Property obtained on partition	Property received during division of joint property.
4. Property given in lieu of maintenance	Property received as maintenance support.
5. Property acquired by inheritance	Inherited property from parents or husband.
6. Property acquired by mechanical arts	Earned property through skill or work.
7. Property obtained by compromise	Property received through legal or family settlements.
8. Property acquired by adverse possession	Ownership acquired by long possession.
9. Property purchased with Stridhan	Property bought using Stridhan or its income.
10. Other sources	Any property obtained from other legitimate means.

Bequests stand on the same footing as gifts.

1. Law Prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956 All the commentators have agreed that the below list is not an exhaustive enumeration of Stridhana. Manu enumerates six kinds of Stridhana:
   • Gifts made before the nuptial fire (Adhyagni)
   • Gifts made at the bridal procession (Adhyabahanika)
   • Gifts made in token of love by father-in-law or mother-in-law (Pritidatta)
   • Gifts made by the father
   • Gifts made by the mother
   • Gifts made by the brother
   And the other kinds established under different schools.
2. Law Post-Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 states: “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.”

The explanation further clarifies that “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, at a partition, instead of maintenance, or by a gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her skill, exertion, purchase, or prescription, and any such property held by her as Stridhan immediately before the commencement of this Act.

Due to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, a Hindu woman was granted complete ownership of any property she possessed. In the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, the Supreme Court decided that any Hindu woman who marries becomes the sole owner of her Stridhan property. She can handle the property however she pleases, and even if she names her husband or in-laws as trustees, she still has the right to demand the property back.

Part 2: Right of Women in Coparcenary Property

A joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A daughter ceases to be a member of her father’s family on marriage and becomes a member of her husband’s family. Reference may be made to notes under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the position and rights in a joint Hindu family of a son or daughter born of a marriage, which is void or voidable under the latter enactment, and who is to be deemed to be a legitimate child of the parents.

Definition of Hindu Coparcenary

A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family and undivided family (HUF). A joint Hindu family has its status irrespective of its property holding. However, the same is not the case with a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), as HUF has its status only if the family owns the joint property. Moreover, a Hindu coparcener includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property.

These are the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being—in other words, the three generations next to the holder in unbroken male descent. After the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, a daughter of a coparcener has been included as a coparcener along with the sons of the coparcener.

Formation of a Coparcenary

The conception of a joint Hindu family constituting a coparcenary is that of a common male ancestor with his lineal descendants in the male line within four degrees counting from, and inclusive of, such ancestor (or three degrees exclusive of the ancestor). No coparcenary can commence without a common male ancestor, though after his death, it may consist of collaterals, such as brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins, etc.

A coparcenary is purely a creature of law; it cannot be created by act of parties, save in so far that by adoption a stranger may be introduced as a member thereof.

1. Law Prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Females could not be coparceners prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Under Mitakshara law, no female could be a coparcener. Even a wife, though she is entitled to maintenance out of her husband’s property and has to that extent an interest in his property, is not her husband’s coparcener. Nor is a mother a coparcener with her sons, neither a mother-in-law with her daughter-in-law.
   • There can be no coparcenary between a mother and daughter among devadasis.
   • A widow succeeding under the Hindu Women’s Rights Property Act, 1937, to her husband’s share in a joint family was not a coparcener.
2. Law Post-Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Daughters were given the status of coparceners after the said amendment, which is well elucidated in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as mentioned below: Section 6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property:
   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—
      1. by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;
      2. have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
      3. be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son.
         
         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.
          
   2. 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.
   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—
      1. the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;
      2. 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 daughter;
      3. the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child, as the case may be.

Impact of the Amendment

By virtue of this new provision, the daughter of a coparcener in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law now becomes a coparcener in her own right and thus enjoys rights equal to those previously enjoyed by a son of a coparcener. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which conferred equal rights upon daughters in a Mitakshara coparcenary, is not ultra vires the Constitution.

Rights of Married and Unmarried Daughters

The section does not make a distinction between married and unmarried daughters. It would thus appear that to hold that a married daughter forfeits or loses her rights as a coparcener is erroneous. Sub-section (1) stipulates that on and from the commencement of the 2005 Amendment, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right. Sub-section (2) further stipulates that property to which a Hindu female becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with all incidents of coparcenary ownership.

Devolution of Coparcenary Property

Sub-section (3) deals with the devolution of coparcenary property where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2005. The very fact of birth in a coparcenary creates the coparcenary; therefore, both sons and daughters of a coparcener become coparceners by virtue of birth. Devolution of coparcenary property is a later stage and a consequence of the death of a coparcener. One of the incidents of coparcenary is the right of a coparcener to seek severance of status.

The legislature has added a provision to sub-section (1), providing that any dispositions or alienations, including partitions or testamentary dispositions, entered into before 20 December 2004, are not affected. The object of this proviso is to ensure that transactions that took place before the stipulated date are not reopened.

Case: Vaishali S Ganorkar v Satish Keshavreo Glanorkar

In Vaishali S Ganorkar v Satish Keshavreo Glanorkar¹¹, a single bench had held that as per section 6 it is only a daughter who was born on or after the date of promulgation of Act, who could become a coparcener as per the Act and daughter of a coparcener born earlier to 9 September 2005, would neither be a coparcener nor entitled to a share in the coparcenary property.

Case: Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari v Omprakash Shankar Bhandari

In Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari v Omprakash Shankar Bhandari¹², the court held that the decision given in the above judgement is erroneous in nature. The Court said that section 6 as amended by the Amending Act of 2005, is retroactive in nature making available to all daughters living on the date of coming into force of the 2005 amendment coparcenary rights, even though they were born prior to this date along with daughters born on or after this date.

Heirs of a daughter who died earlier to this date, would not get any right in the property and the Amending Act, therefore, is not retrospective in nature as relating back to 17 June 1956, so as to unsettle all partitions which were not affected by decrees of court or registered instruments even if executed prior to 20 December 2004.

The Court Held That:

• Amended section 6 is retroactive in operation;
• Section 6(1)(a) is prospective in operation;
• Section 6(1)(b), (c) and section 6(2) are retroactive in operation;
• Amended Act applies to daughters born both prior to as also after 9 September 2005 provided they were alive on this date as well; and
• The decision of the Court in Vaishali Ganorkar is per incuriam.

Case: Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that “the rights of coparceners under the Amendment Act, 2005 apply to the living, daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September 2005, irrespective of the birth date of daughters.” It means that if the father is a coparcener who passed away before 9th September 2005, the living daughter of the coparcener would have no right to inherit the coparcenary property in such a situation.

This case threw light upon the interpretation of the legislation regarding the Amendment Act, 2005. It stated that the said Act shall not be applicable if the coparcener had died before the commencement of the Act. It means that in such cases the survivorship rule shall prevail and the daughter will not have any right over the coparcenary property.

Case: Danamma v. Amar Singh

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that if the father is a coparcener who passed away before 9th September 2005 and a prior suit has been pending for partition by a male-coparcener, then the female coparceners are entitled to a share. The court observed that the provisions of Section 6 of the Amendment Act are operational in a retrospective manner and they confer absolute rights upon the daughter to be coparcener since birth.

This decision was in contrast to the judgement given in the Phulavati case. Thus, both the aforementioned judgments conflicted with each other and gave rise to a divergence of questions regarding the coparcenary rights of a daughter in inheriting the coparcenary property of her deceased father. This led to the grant of appeal in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Case: Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.

The court stated that women have been subjected to historical injustice when it comes to being a coparcener and they must be given equal rights irrespective of the prospective or retrospective application of the Act. Section 6(1)(a) of the Amendment Act, 2005 explains about the birthright of a coparcener i.e ‘unobstructed heritage’ under Mitakshara coparcenary to inherit the property.

The court opined that the coparcener has a right over the ancestral property by birth and hence it is not essential for the father (coparcener) to be alive as on the date of the amendment. It is so because the coparcenary rights conferred by the daughter are by her birth, not by obstructed heritage.

Thus, the concept that the father (coparcener) and daughter must be alive on the date when the Amendment Act, 2005 came into force as laid down in the Phulavati’s case was overruled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 6 of the Amendment Act, 2005 shall be applied retroactively.

Explaining the concept of retroactive application of the Amendment Act, 2005, the court held that the said Act enables women to have the benefit of succession based on her birth. Through this case, it was ruled that daughters have an equal right in the coparcenary property same as the son, even if the father died before the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It also held that the rights under the said amendment apply to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September 2005, irrespective of the date of birth of the daughter.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Indian women can acquire property through self-acquisition, Stridhan, maintenance, and inheritance or devolution, the practical realization of these rights remains limited. Despite statutory provisions, property ownership among women continues to be disproportionately low, with only 37% in urban areas and 45% in rural areas owning property independently or jointly.¹⁶

This disparity underscores the urgent need to bridge the gap between legal rights and societal practice. Empowering women through awareness and education about their property rights is essential to ensuring economic independence, enhancing social status, and fostering gender equality in property ownership across the country.

This gap between entitlement and actual ownership often stems from deep-rooted patriarchal norms, lack of awareness, and socio-economic barriers that hinder women from asserting their rights. Moreover, familial pressure, gender-biased inheritance practices, and limited access to legal recourse further marginalize women.

Addressing these issues requires legal reform in society, community engagement, and sustained policy interventions which is the need of the age.

References:

• Law Commission of India, Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law (Law Com. No. 174 2000). URL: https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/kerala.htm
• Vinod Kumar v State of Punjab, (1982) 84 PLR 337
• Manu, IX, 194
• Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956
• Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370
• CIT v Luxminarayan, AIR 1935 Bom 412 : (1935) 59 Bom 618; Melagiriyappa Lalithamma, AIR 1961 Mys 152; Sri Raghunada Brozoa Kishor, (1876) 1 Mad 69 P 89 3 IA 154
• Chhabda v CIT; Bombay, AIR 1976 SC 109 : (1976) 3 SCC 142; CIT v Luxminarayan, AIR 1935 Bom 412 : (1935) 59 Bom 618 : 37 Bom LR 692 : 159 IC 424
• Sudarsanam v Narasimbulu, (1902) 25 Mad 149, pp 154–57; Bhagwan Dayal v Reoti Devi, AIR 1962 SC 287 : (1962) 3 SCR 440
• Section 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956
• Dr. G. Krishnamurthy v UOI, AIR 2015 Mad 114
• Vaishali S. Ganorkar v Satish Keshavrao Ganorkar, AIR 2012 Bom 101 : 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 116
• Badrinarayan Shankar Bhandari v Omprakash Shankar Bhandari, AIR 2014 Bom 151
• Prakash v Phulwati, AIR 2016 SC 7691
• Danamma @ Suman Gurpur v Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343
• Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma, AIR 2020 SC 3717 : AIROnline 2020 SC 676
• URL: https://mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/NFHS-5_Phase-II_0.pdf

Written By: Chaitanya Koparde, V BALLB – ILS Law College, Pune