GENERAL

RULES OF
SUCCESSION
TO THE
PROPERTY OF A
FEMALE
 A PROLOGUE TO THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

• Succession scheme of males and females differed.

• Agnates preferred over cognates

• Women were given absolute ownership rights

over the property, irrespective of its mode of
acquisition.
• For succession to a woman’s property, the Act
provides for three different sets of heirs
depending upon the source of acquisition of the
property of the female.
 Section 15
General Rules
of Succession
for the female
dying intestate
(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.

S.15 include woman’s
biological or adopted,
legitimate even illegitimate
children, but not step son or
step daughter.
Decoding the phrase ‘heirs of the husband’
 It excludes her great grandchildren, born to her from a

previous marriage, from inheriting her property.

 A married woman inherits from only four relations of her

husband, viz., the husband’s father, the paternal

grandfather and his brother. She has to be a widow and

should not have remarried on the date of opening of

succession. The fourth relation from where she inherits

is her step son.

But when she dies, the entire group of ‘heirs of the

husband’ would be eligible to succeed to her

property, even in preference to her own parents.

 Decoding the phrase ‘heirs of the husband’
The provision is not in
tune with practical
reality. For example, a
distant relative, who is
the fourth or fifth
cousin of the husband,
is preferred over the
woman’s parents or
brothersIn and sisters.
none of the other
succession laws in
vogue in India, are the
blood relations given
an inferior placement,
in comparison to the
relations by marriage.
This is a unique feature
in Hindu Law and
affects an issueless
 Debrata Mandal v. State of West
Bengal, AIR 2008 Cal. 13

A Hindu
She married
woman was She made an
a widower
granted a express
and then
heritable representati
died
lease for a on to the
issueless in
period of government
2002
999 years
Despite the
And they are representati That the
covered in on it was step sons
the category held that should not
of “Heirs of step sons get the land
the are heirs of ever after
Husband” Hindu her death.
woman
Om Prakash v. Radha
Charan,
2009 (7) SCALE 51
 • A 15 year old Hindu girl was thrown out
of the matrimonial home after her
husband died of snake bite three
1. months of the marriage.
• She took shelter with her parents, was
educated by them and then took a job.
2 Her in laws never bothered to inquire for
her and there was a complete snapping
. of relations
• She died intestate 42 years later, leaving
behind huge sums in various bank
3 accounts, besides her provident fund
. and a substantial property.
• Ironically, the claim of her mother and brother
were negatived by the Supreme Court in favour
of her late husband’s brothers on the ground
4 that as per the HSA, 1956 they have a legal
right to inherit the property of an issueless
. married Hindu woman.
 The case and the verdict both are
unfortunate on two counts:

The law itself and its implementation

The court noted “It is now a well-settled

principle of law that sentiment or sympathy
alone would not be a guiding factor in
determining the rights of the parties which
are otherwise clear and unambiguous under
the Hindu Succession Act.”
The case brings forth several aspects of
gender•
discrimination
No succession law except
Marriage Hindu law, gives preference
to in-laws over blood
relation relations. In every religious
over community, including Parsi,
Muslim and Christian
blood communities, the woman’s
relations own blood relations have the
right.
• The law of inheritance is not
Entitleme just about entitlements but
nts as also about disentitling a
person who in accordance
well as with rules of equity, justice,
disentitle good conscience and public
policy should not inherit the
ment property.
 Son • The actual effect of
prefere the judicial approval
nce/ of these laws is far
Son’s reaching as it is
directly linked with
pious son-preference
obligati among Hindus.
ons • If from a son only his blood
relatives will inherit but from
Paray a daughter the blood
relatives would inherit only
a till she remains unmarried as
different rules would prevail
Dhan upon her marriage, it is
discrimination linked to
marriage of a Hindu female
 Social/
Economi • Parents of a girl
c should have the
security same security as
that of a man.
of girls
parents • Legislative/judicial
stand should never
Gender reflect a gender
biased scheme if the
based State is sincerely
crimes committed against
the evil of female
At this point…. the case
of Kamal Anant Khopkar
v. Union of India
WP/2018,
is pending before the
Supreme Court of India,
that is set to hear the
constitutional validity of
 Sec. 15(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
 Inter-relationship between S.15(1) and
S.15(2)

Any property
Property inherited from parents, husband and father-in-
law
An anomaly in this sub-section as well
Property • The section provides that
of the property inherited from
mother father can go to the
father’s heirs but property
can go to inherited from the mother
the will also go to the father’s
heirs (in case the female
father’s died issueless).
The
heirs
section • This sub-section makes a
defines a woman an entity who is to
be defined by her
woman relationships and she
by her cannot have
independent set of heirs.
her
relations
Bhagat Singh v. Teja Singh AIR 2002 SC 1

Two sisters On the The other

inherited death of sister took
the one, who the
property of died as an property as
their issueless the father’s
mother widow heir

The deceased She then

He claimed sister’s entered
the husband’s into an
property brother agreement
under S. challenged to sell the
15(1)(b) the validity of property to
the same. X.
 The Supreme Court stated

• Since both the conditions are

fulfilled viz.
i. She had inherited the
property from her mother and
ii. had died issueless
The property would revert to the
father’s heirs i.e. her sister in
this case.
However, for Sec.15(2) to apply
The inherited property must be available at

the time of her death. If the identity of the

property has changed or substantially

altered or improved or substituted, S.15(2)

has no application.

Veera Raghavamma v. G. Subbarao AIR

1976 A.P. 377.

 Emna Veeraghavamma v. G.
Subbarao
• A Hindu female inherited
some properties from her
deceased husband, which
she later on sold. Sale
Facts was valid. Out of the sale
proceed, she purchased
some other properties.
Later the woman died.

The • Whether the

property will
quest fall under
ion S.15(2) or S.15
was (1) of the Act?
 The Court observed

“Expression Property inherited by a female Hindu

from her father or mother u/s. 15(2)(a) must be
given a restricted meaning consistent with the
absolute right of disposition of female owner. The
special rule of succession applies only in the case
where the very property inherited by a female
from her father/mother/husband/father in law is
still available at the time of her death, otherwise
the rule does not apply i.e. if the property is
substantially improved upon or substituted.”
Under S. 15(2)(a) when the proposita

(deceased female) who had

inherited the property from her

father or mother (as an heir) and

died issueless, then such property

(inherited property) will devolve by

Dhanishtha Kalita v.
Ramakanta Kalita
AIR 2003 Gau 92
 Wido
w

Husba Husba
nd 1 nd 2

Daugh
Son Son
ter
 her
died
husband
leaving
whose
behind a
property
son and
she had
daughter…
inherited.

The court
She also had
held that the
a son born to
son born to
her from her
her from her
previous
previous
marriage.
marriage…

….will not be ….as this son

entitled to was not the
the property progeny of
and will be the husband
excluded whose
from property she
 The court observed:
The object of section 15(2) is to ensure
that the property left by a Hindu female,
does not lose the real source from where
the deceased female had inherited the
property… if such property is allowed to
be drifted away from the source through
which the deceased female has actually
inherited the property the object of
section 15(2) would be defeated.
In Jayantilal Mansukhlal v. Mehta

Channanlal Ambalal AIR 1968 Guj 212,

the court addressed the issue whether

property received under a will is

inherited property or not?

In this case, a Hindu female received

properties under a will of her mother.

 The court observed
Succession to this property will be governed by S.15(1) and

not by sub section (2). S.15(2)(a) deals with inheritance,

whereas the instant case is clearly a case of device and not

of inheritance. Hindu female’s property is indisputably the

one which had devolved on her by a device or a bequest

under the will of her father. The words ‘device’ and

‘inheritance’ are distinct expressions as is apparent from

the use of two distinct words in explanation to sub sec.(1)

of S.14 of the Act. S.15(2)(a) clearly relates to inheritance

and as such can have no application in the case of device.

 Preventing Property From Going to the
Government by Doctrine of Escheat

Escheat (S.29 HSA)- Upon failure of qualified

heirs to succeed to the property left behind by

the propositus or the proposita in accordance

with the scheme of the Act, then such

property shall devolve upon the government.

State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh AIR 1991SC

2301 .
Constitutional Validity of
Section 15
 Somu Bai Yashwant Jadeav v.
Balagovinda Yadav, AIR 1983 BOM 156

• The constitutional validity was

challenged on the ground of hostile
discrimination on grounds of sex.
• The court ruled in favour of the
legislation and held that the rule of
reversion was in furtherance of the
clear objective of continuing family
unity.
• The court rejected the petition and
held that it is not discriminatory.