Devolution of Property and Coparcenary Rights

Devolution of Interest in Coparcenary Property (Section 6)

Originally, under Section 6, the interest of a deceased male coparcener devolved by survivorship.
After the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, daughters became coparceners by birth, enjoying the same rights and liabilities as sons.

Key Features of the 2005 Amendment

• Daughters are coparceners by birth, not by inheritance.
• They have equal rights to demand partition and to dispose of their share by will.
• The amendment abolished the concept of survivorship.
• It applies to living daughters as of 9 September 2005, regardless of their birth date.
• Savings clause: Transactions or partitions before 20 December 2004 remain unaffected.

Order of Succession for Males (Sections 8–13)

• Section 8: Property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves to heirs in Class I, then Class II, then Agnates, and finally Cognates.
• Section 9: Class I heirs take simultaneously and equally.
• Section 10: Illustrates distribution among heirs of Class I (e.g., son, daughter, widow, mother, etc.).
• Sections 11–13: Deal with succession among Class II, agnates, and cognates.

Property of a Female Hindu (Sections 14–16)

Section 14: Absolute Ownership

Any property possessed by a Hindu female is held as full owner, not limited owner.
This provision abolished the “limited estate” concept, historically imposed under old Hindu law.

Case Law:

• V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (1977) – Supreme Court held Section 14(1) to be retrospective and to confer absolute ownership to women over property held in any capacity.

Section 15–16: Order of Succession of Female Property

• Property of a Hindu female dying intestate devolves to:
  1. Sons and daughters (including children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband;
  2. Heirs of the husband;
  3. Heirs of the father and mother.

Objective: To protect the property within the marital family but with scope for reform towards gender equality.

Landmark Case: Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)

• The Supreme Court clarified that the 2005 Amendment is retrospective in operation, granting coparcenary rights to daughters born before or after the amendment, irrespective of whether the father was alive on that date.

Other Judicial Clarifications

• Danamma v. Amar (2018) – Daughters are entitled to equal shares even if the father died before 2005, provided partition wasn’t completed.
• Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) – Initially held the amendment to be prospective, later overruled by Vineeta Sharma.

Review Questions 

1. Explain the evolution of Section 6 before and after the 2005 amendment.
2. What are the main features of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005?
3. Discuss the ratio of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020).
4. How does Section 14 empower Hindu women in property ownership?
5. Describe the order of succession for male intestates under the Act.