Changes brought in the position of women

(specifically in Sec 6 of the HSA, 1956) after the 2005 Amendment (431)

Chat with us (2 PM - 9 PM IST)

Shelly Saluja and Soumya Saxena - NLIU Law Student Introduction The Constitution of India provides that every person is entitled for equality before law and equal protection of the laws and thereby prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, creed and sex. The discrimination on the basis of sex is permissible only as protective measures to the female citizens as there is need to empower women who have suffered gender discrimination for centuries. Empowerment of women, leading to an equal social status with men hinges, among other things, on their right to hold and inherit property. Civilized societies across the globe ensure that women's inheritance rights are more secure than those of men because women take on the tremendous responsibility of producing and nurturing the next generation. In India, women's rights have suffered serious setbacks among all communities. Before 1956 Despite the Hindu Succession Act being passed in 1956, which gave women equal inheritance rights with men, the mitakshara coparcenary system was retained and the government refused to abolish the system of joint family. According to this system, in the case of a joint family, the daughter gets a smaller share than the son . While dividing the father's property between the mother, brother and sister, the share is equal. The Constitution of India enshrines the principle of gender equality in its Preamble and Parts III, IV and IVA pertaining to Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles respectively. The Constitution not only grants equality to women, but also empowers the State to adopt measures of positive discrimination in favour of women. And now as India becomes increasingly aware of the need for equal rights for women, the government can't afford to overlook, property rights have a deep impact on the national economy. The need to dispense gender justice raises deep political debate and at times acrimony in legislative forums. This enthused the ?house? to move a bill to make amendments in the Hindu Succession Act, to secure the rights of women in the area of property. The aim is to end gender discrimination in Mitakshara coparcenary by including daughters in the system. Mitakshara is one of the two schools of Hindu Law but it prevails in a large part of the country. Under this, a son, son's son, great grandson and great great grandson have a right by birth to ancestral property or properties in the hands of the father and their interest is equal to that of the father. The group having this right is termed a coparcenary. The coparcenary is at present confined to male members of the joint family, it has been further elucidated in the project. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is a landmark. After 50 years, the Government finally addressed some persisting gender inequalities in the 1956 Hindu Succession Act (1956 HSA), which itself was path-breaking. The 2005 Act covers inequalities on several fronts: agricultural land; Mitakshara joint family property; parental dwelling house; and certain widow's. The amendment has come into operation from 2005; our project makes an analysis of this amendment, in that specifically dealing with changes brought in the woman's property rights in Mitakshara joint family property, what effects it will have on the position of women, loopholes in the amendment, its advantages and disadvantages and few suggestions to make it more effectual. What Is Mitakshara Coparcenary? Coparcenary literally means Joint inheritance or heirship of property. Also called parcenary. Coparcenary is a narrower body of persons within a joint family, and consists of father, son, son's son, son's son's son. The disparity in the property rights on the basis of gender is deep rooted and can be traced back to the ancient times.

Traditional Hindu inheritance laws evolved from the ancient texts of Dharmashastras and the various commentaries and legal treatises on them. In particular, the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga legal doctrines, dated around the twelfth century AD govern the inheritance practices among the Hindus. In most of northern and parts of western India Mitakshara law is prevalent.Under the Mitakshara law, on birth, the son acquires a right and interest in the family property. According to this school, a son, grandson and a great grandson constitute a class of coparceners, based on birth in the family. No female is a member of the coparcenary in Mitakshara law. Under the Mitakshara system, joint family property devolves by survivorship within the coparcenary. This means that with every birth or death of a male in the family, the share of every other surviving male either gets diminished or enlarged. If a coparcenary consists of a father and his two sons, each would own one third of the property. If another son is born in the family, automatically the share of each male is reduced to one fourth. The Mitakshara law also recognizes inheritance by succession but only to the property separately owned by an individual male or female. Females are included as heirs to this kind of property by Mitakshara law. Position Of Woman (In Regards To Property Rights) Prior To Enactment Of Hindu Succession Act, 1956Since time immemorial the framing of all property laws have been exclusively for the benefit of man, and woman has been treated as subservient, and dependent on male support. The right to property is important for the freedom and development of a human being. Prior to the Act of 1956, Shastric and Customary laws, which varied from region to region, governed Hindus and sometimes it varied in the same region on a caste basis. As the country is vast and communications and social interactions in the past were difficult, it led to diversity in the law. Consequently in matters of succession also, there were different schools, like Dayabhaga in Bengal and the adjoining areas; Mayukha in Bombay, Konkan and Gujarat and Marumakkattayam or Nambudri in Kerala and Mitakshara in other parts of India with slight variations. The multiplicity of succession laws in India, diverse in their nature, owing to their varied origin made the property laws even mere complex. But, however the social reform movement during the pre-independence period raised the issue of gender discrimination and a number of ameliorative steps were initiated. The principal reform that was called for, and one which became a pressing necessity in view of changed social and economic conditions, was that in succession there should be equitable distribution between male and female heirs and the Hindu women's limited estate should be enlarged into full ownership (however that actually never happened). The only property over which she had an absolute ownership was the Stridhan meaning women's property. Prior to Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, 1929Prior to this Act, the Mitakshara law also recognizes inheritance by succession but only to the property separately owned by an individual, male or female. Females are included as heirs to this kind of property by Mitakshara law. Before the Hindu Law of Inheritance Act 1929, the Bengal, Benares and Mithila sub schools of Mitakshara recognized only five female relations as being entitled to inherit namely - widow, daughter, mother paternal grandmother, and paternal great-grand mother . The Madras sub-school recognized the heritable capacity of a larger number of female's heirs that is of the son's daughter, daughter's daughter and the sister, as heirs who are expressly named as heirs in Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, 1929.The son's daughter and the daughter's daughter ranked as bandhus in Bombay and Madras. The Bombay school which is most liberal to women, recognized a number of other female heirs including a half sister, father's sister and women married into the family such as stepmother, son's widow, brother's widow and also many other females classified as bandhus. Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, 1929This was the earliest piece of legislation, bringing woman into the scheme of inheritance. This Act, conferred inheritance rights on three female heirs i.e. son's daughter, daughter's daughter and sister (thereby creating limited restriction on the rule of

survivorship). Hindu Women's Right to Property Act (XVIII of), 1937This was the landmark legislation conferring ownership rights on women. This Act brought about revolutionary changes in the Hindu Law of all schools, and brought changes not only in the law of coparcenary but also in the law of partition, alienation of property, inheritance and adoption . The Act of 1937 enabled the widow to succeed along with the son and to take a share equal to that of the son. But, the widow did not become a coparcener even though she possessed a right akin to a coparcenary interest in the property and was a member of the joint family. The widow was entitled only to a limited estate in the property of the deceased with a right to claim partition . A daughter had virtually no inheritance rights. Despite these enactments having brought important changes in the law of succession by conferring new rights of succession on certain females, these were still found to be incoherent and defective in many respects and gave rise to a number of anomalies and left untouched the basic features of discrimination against women. These enactments now stand repealed. Constitutional Provisions ensuring Gender EqualityThe framers of the Indian Constitution took note of the adverse condition of women in society and a number of provisions and safeguards were included in the Constitution to ward off gender inequality. In this context, Articles 14 , 15(3) and 16 of the Constitution can be mentioned. These provisions are part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Part IV containing Directive Principles of State Policy, which are no less fundamental in the governance of the State to ensure equality between man and woman such as equal pay for equal work. The Directive Principles further endorses the principle of gender equality, which the State has to follow in matters of governance. Similarly, Part IVA of the Constitution enshrining the Fundamental Duties states that: # It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (e) ... to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women... Despite these provisions for ensuring equal status, unfortunately a woman is still not only neglected in her own natal family but also the family she marries into because of certain laws and attitudes. Position Of Woman After Enactment Of Hindu Succession Act, 1956After the advent of the Constitution, the first law made at the central level pertaining to property and inheritance concerning Hindus was the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the HSA). This Act dealing with intestate succession among Hindus came into force on 17th June 1956. It brought about changes in the law of succession and gave rights, which were hitherto unknown, in relation to a woman's property. The section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 follows as: Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. - When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act: Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be and not by survivorship. Explanation 1. For the purpose of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. Explanation 2. Nothing contained in the proviso to this section shall be construed as enabling a person who has

separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein. Section 6 deals with the devolution of the interest of a male Hindu in coparcenary property it says that if a male Hindu dies leaving behind his share in Mithakshara Co-parcenary property , such property will pass on to his sons, son's son's, son's son's son by survivorship, on surviving members. In case there are female relatives like daughter, widow, mother, daughter of predeceased son, daughter of predeceased daughter, widow of predeceased son, widow of predeceased son of a predeceased son, then the interest of the deceased co-parcenary will pass on to his heirs by succession and not by survivorship . And while recognizing the rule of devolution by survivorship among the members of the coparcenary, makes an exception to the rule in the proviso. According to the proviso, if the deceased has left him surviving a female relative specified in Class I of Schedule I, or a male relative specified in that Class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession under this Act and not by survivorship. The rule of survivorship comes into operation only: Where the deceased does not leave him surviving a female relative specified in Class I, or a male relative specified in that Class who claims through such female relative; and When the deceased has not made a testamentary disposition of his undivided share in the coparcenary property. As pointed out above that the main provision of this section deals with the devolution of the interest of a coparcener dying intestate by the rule of survivorship and the proviso speaks of the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara Coparcenary Property. Now, in order to ascertain what is the interest of the deceased coparcener, one necessarily needs to keep in mind the two Explanations under the proviso. These two Explanations give the necessary assistance for ascertaining the interest of the deceased coparcener in the Mitakshara Coparcenary Property. Explanation I provides for ascertaining the interest on the basis of a notional partition by applying a fiction as if the partition had taken place immediately before the death of the deceased coparcener. Explanation II lays down that a person who has separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of the heirs of such divided coparcener is not entitled to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to in the section. Under the proviso if a female relative in class I of the schedule or a male relative in that class claiming through such female relative survives the deceased, then only would the question of claiming his interest by succession arise. The Supreme Court in 1978 Gurupad v. Heerabai and reiterated later in 1994 in Shyama Devi v. Manju Shukla wherein it has been held that the proviso to section 6 gives the formula for fixing the share of the claimant and the share is to be determined in accordance with Explanation I by deeming that a partition had taken place a little before his death which gives the clue for arriving at the share of the deceased.Section 6 can further be understood by the following-Example: If ?C? dies leaving behind his two sons only, and no female heirs of class I then property of ?C? passes to his sons by survivorship since there are no female relatives like daughter or any other member specified in the class I of first schedule. In case ?C? dies leaving behind two sons and three daughters, then property of ?C? will pass on to his sons and daughters by succession in the following manner. Firstly property of "C" is divided between "C" and his two sons. The shares of "C" and his two sons are, C gets onethird and each son one-third. The sons are entitled to the equal share of the property along with the father. But the daughters are entitled to the share in the share of the deceased ?C? along with other sons. So the sons will get one-third of the property and a share, which is one-fifth in the share of deceased ?C?. Hence the daughter does not take equal share with the son. However, section 6 did not interfere with the special rights of those who are members of a Mitakshara coparcenary except to provide rules for devolution of the interest of a deceased in certain cases. The Act lays down a uniform

and comprehensive system of inheritance and applies, interalia, to persons governed by Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools as also to those in certain parts of southern India who were previously governed by the Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri Systems. The Act applies to any person who is a Hindu as defined in section 2 of HSA . But now the question the question is whether, the Hindu Succession Act actually gave women an equal right to property or did it only profess to do so. Significantly, the provisions regarding succession in the Hindu Code Bill, as originally framed by the B.N.Rau Committee and piloted by Dr.Ambedkar, was for abolishing Mitakshara coparcenary with its concept of survivorship and the son's right by birth in a joint family property and substituting it with the principle of inheritance by succession. These proposals met with a storm of conservative opposition. The extent of opposition within the Congress or the then government itself can be gauged from the fact that the then Law Minister Mr.Biswas, on the floor of the house, expressed himself against daughters inheriting property from their natal families. The retention of the Mitakshara coparcenary without including females in it meant that females couldn't inherit ancestral property as males do. If a joint family gets divided, each male coparcener takes his share and females get nothing. Only when one of the coparceners dies, a female gets a share of his share as an heir to the deceased. Thus the law by excluding the daughters from participating in coparcenary ownership (merely by reason of their sex) not only contributed to an inequity against females but has led to oppression and negation of their right to equality and appears to be a mockery of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Hence this very fact necessitated a further change in regards to the property rights of women, and which was done by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill, 2004. The State Amendments The idea of making a woman a coparcener was suggested as early as 1945 in written statements submitted to the Hindu Law Committee by a number of individuals and groups; and again in 1956, when the Hindu Succession Bill was being finally debated prior to its enactment an amendment was moved to make a daughter and her children members of the Hindu coparcenary in the same way as a son or his children. But this progressive idea was finally rejected and the Mitakshara Joint family was retained. The concept of the Mitakshara coparcenary property retained under section 6 of the HSA has not been amended ever since its enactment. Though, it is a matter of some satisfaction that five states in India namely, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka have taken cognizance of the fact that a woman needs to be treated equally both in the economic and the social spheres. As per the law of four of these states, (Kerala excluded), in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. Kerala, however, has gone one step further and abolished the right to claim any interest in any property of an ancestor during his or her lifetime founded on the mere fact that he or she was born in the family. In fact, it has abolished the Joint Hindu family system altogether including the Mitakshara, Marumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri systems. Thus enacting that joint tenants be replaced by tenants in common.A list of the legislation passed by the five states is set out below and the legislation is annexed as Annexed "1" The The The The The Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, Kerala. Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986. Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989. Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1994. Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1994.

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was seeks to make two major amendments in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. First, it is proposed to remove the gender discrimination in section 6 of the original Act. Second, it

proposes to omit section 23 of the original Act, which disentitles a female heir to ask for partition in respect of a dwelling house, wholly occupied by a joint family, until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein. However in the instant project we have focused specifically on the changes brought in Section 6 in regards to the position of woman and has made a clause-by-clause consideration of the section thus amended. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been restated for convenienceDevolution of interest in coparcenary property. - When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of this Act, having at the time of his death an interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with this Act: Provided that, if the deceased had left him surviving a female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be and not by survivorship. Explanation 1. For the purpose of this section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. Explanation 2. Nothing contained in the proviso to this section shall be construed as enabling a person who has separated himself from the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or any of his heirs to claim on intestacy a share in the interest referred to therein. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 20056 (l). Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,-(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son ; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and 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 subsection (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 in, 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, 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,(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son; (b) 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 of such pre-deceased daughter; and (c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a predeceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased so or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. (4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognize any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or greatgrandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect-(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or (b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 had not been enacted. Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (a), the expression "son", "grandson" or "great-grandson" shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December 2004. Explanation- For the purposes of this section "partition" means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or partition affected by a decree of a court. Section 6 seeks to make the daughter a coparcener by birth in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son. Laws reflect the face of society and its evolution over the time. To respond to the needs of a dynamic social system, laws have to be changed and amended, at regular intervals. As far as the basic objective of the Act is to remove gender discriminatory practices in the property laws of the Hindus, whereby daughters have been given the status of coparceners in the Mitakshara joint family system. However, the position of other Class I female heirs should not suffer as a result of this move. However, it does not interfere with the special rights of those who are members of Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary except to provide rules for devolution of the interest of a deceased male in certain cases. The Act lays down a uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and applies, inter alia, to persons governed by the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools and also to those governed previously by the Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri laws. It is proposed to remove the discrimination as contained in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have. Changes Brought In The Position Of The Women (Specifically Focusing On Section 6) Out of many significant benefits brought in for women, one of the significant benefit has been to make women coparcenary (right by birth) in Mitakshara joint family property. Earlier the female heir only had a deceased man's notional portion. With this amendment, both male and female will get equal rights. In a major blow to patriarchy, centuries-old customary Hindu law in the shape of the exclusive male mitakshara coparcenary has been breached throughout the country. The preferential right by birth of sons in joint family property, with the offering of "shradha" for the spiritual benefit

and solace of ancestors, has for centuries been considered sacred and inviolate. It has also played a major role in the blatant preference for sons in Indian society. This amendment, in one fell swoop, has made the daughter a member of the coparcenary and is a significant advancement towards gender equality. The significant change of making all daughters (including married ones) coparceners in joint family property - has been of a of great importance for women, both economically and symbolically. Economically, it can enhance women's security, by giving them birthrights in property that cannot be willed away by men. In a male-biased society where wills often disinherit women, this is a substantial gain. Also, as noted, women can become kartas of the property. Symbolically, all this signals that daughters and sons are equally important members of the parental family. It undermines the notion that after marriage the daughter belongs only to her husband's family. If her marriage breaks down, she can now return to her birth home by right, and not on the sufferance of relatives. This will enhance her self-confidence and social worth and give her greater bargaining power for herself and her children, in both parental and marital families. Now under the amendment, daughters will now get a share equal to that of sons at the time of the notional partition, just before the death of the father, and an equal share of the father's separate share. Equal distribution of undivided interests in co-parcenery property. However, the position of the mother vis--vis the coparcenary stays the same. She, not being a member of the coparcenary, will not get a share at the time of the notional partition. The mother will be entitled to an equal share with other Class I heirs only from the separate share of the father computed at the time of the notional partition. In effect, the actual share of the mother will go down, as the separate share of the father will be less as the property will now be equally divided between father, sons and daughters in the notional partition. Some Anomalies Still Persist Some other anomalies also persist1. One stems from retaining the Mitaksara joint property system. Making daughters coparceners will decrease the shares of other Class I female heirs, such as the deceased's widow and mother, since the coparcenary share of the deceased male from whom they inherit will decline. In States where the wife takes a share on partition, as in Maharashtra, the widow's potential share will now equal the son's and daughter's. But where the wife takes no share on partition, as in Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh, the widow's potential share will fall below the daughter's. 2. Co-parcenary remains a primary entitlement of males; the law, no doubt provides for equal division of the male co-parcener's share on his death between all heirs, male and female; still, the law puts the male heirs on a higher footing by providing that they shall inherit an additional independent share in co-parcenary property over and above what they inherit equally with female heirs; the very concept of co-parcenary is that of an exclusive male membership club and therefore should be abolished. But such abolition needed to be dovetailed with partially restricting the right to will (say to 1/3 of the property). Such restrictions are common in several European countries. Otherwise women may inherit little, as wills often disinherit them. However, since the 2005 Act does not touch testamentary freedom, retaining the Mitaksara system and making daughters coparceners, while not the ideal solution, at least provides women assured shares in joint family property (if we include landholdings, the numbers benefiting could be large). 3. If a Hindu female dies intestate, her property devolves first to husband's heirs, then to husband's father's heirs and finally only to mother's heirs; thus the intestate Hindu female property is kept within the husband's lien. Another reason for having an all India legislation is that if the Joint Family has properties in two states, one which is governed by the Amending Act and the other not so governed, it may result in two Kartas, one a daughter and the other a son. Difficulties pertaining to territorial application of Amending Act will also arise. Thus is the need for an all India Act or Uniform Civil Code more immediate. Conclusion The Preamble to the Amending Acts indicates the objective as the removal of discrimination against daughters

inherent in the mitakshara coparcenary and thereby eradication of the baneful system of dowry by positive measures thus ameliorating the condition of women in the human society. It is necessary to understand that if equality exists only as a phenomenon outside the awareness and approval of the majority of the people, it cannot be realized by a section of women socialized in traditions of inequality. Thus there is need to social awareness and to educate people to change their attitude towards the concept of gender equality. The need of the hour is also to focus attention on changing the social attitudes in favour of equality for all by enacting a uniform law. The difficult question of implementing the 2005 Act remains. Campaigns for legal literacy; efforts to enhance social awareness of the advantages to the whole family if women own property; and legal and social aid for women seeking to assert their rights, are only a few of the many steps needed to fulfill the change incorporated in the Act.

Can Women be Karta?

Chat with us (2 PM - 9 PM IST)

Manisha Garg and Neha Nagar - Students 2nd yr NLIU, Bhopal Introduction The Karta of a Hindu joint Family in Hindu Law is the senior most member of the family entitled to manage family affairs, in his absence the next eldest male member after him is entitled to be the Karta. A Karta is the caretaker of the whole family and looks after the welfare of all the members of the family. His relationship with other members is a relationship of trust and confidence. At least one male member is necessary to constitute a coparcenary. But the question arises that if no male member is left in the family or if all male members are minors then who becomes the Karta ? or Can a female member of a Hindu Joint Family become a Karta then in such circumstances ? this situation makes us rely on various judicial pronouncements which have dealt with this question. The view of the judiciary is inconsistent. Now when a major step towards ending gender discrimination and to stop the gender-bias prevalent in families and to improve adverse condition of women in society has been taken in the form of The Hindu Succession Amendment Act,2005 . This amendment has conferred equal property rights on daughters as well. Now the daughters by birth will acquire rights over coparcenary property. Earlier women were not included as coparcenary members, and according to the Hindu sages only a coparcener can become a karta, and therefore they could not be the Karta. But now because of the changed position of daughters as coparceners the situation is in favour of possibility of

women becoming Karta. There are diverse views of the Courts on this point. In our project we have tried to explain the position of women in relation to that of a Karta, we have also, by going through case-laws and judicial pronouncements. Our Project is divided in parts. The First part deals with historical background. The second part deals with can women be a karta. The third part deals with arguments for and against of women as Karta. The Last part is a synthesis of the arguments advanced ie the conclusion. Background Since ancient times the framing of all property laws have been exclusively for the benefit of man, and woman has been treated as subservient, and dependent on male support. The right to property is important for the freedom and development of a human being. # Position prior to the Act of 1956 Hindus were governed by Shastric and Customary laws which varied from region to region and sometimes it varied in the same region on a caste basis. As the country is vast and communications and social interactions in the past were difficult, it led to a diversity in the law. Consequently, in matters of succession also, there were different schools, like Dayabhaga in Bengal and the adjoining areas; Mayukha in Bombay, Konkan and Gujarat and Marumakkattayam or Nambudri in Kerala and Mitakshara in other parts of India with slight variations. The multiplicity of succession laws in India, diverse in their nature, owing to their varied origin made the property laws even mere complex. A woman in a joint Hindu family, consisting both of man and woman, had a right to sustenance, but the control and ownership of property did not vest in her. No female is a member of the coparcenary in Mitakshara law. Under the Mitakshara system, joint family property devolves by survivorship within the coparcenary. This means that with every birth or death of a male in the family, the share of every other surviving male either gets diminished or enlarged. The Mitakshara law also recognises inheritance by succession but only to the property separately owned by an individual, male or female. Females are included as heirs to this kind of property by Mitakshara law. Before the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act 1929, the Bengal, Benares and Mithila sub schools of Mitakshara recognised only five female relations as being entitled to inherit namely - widow, daughter, mother paternal grandmother, and paternal great-grandmother. The Madras sub-school recognised the heritable capacity of a larger number of females heirs that is of the son's daughter, daughter's daughter and the sister, as heirs who are expressly named as heirs in Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act,1929. The son's daughter and the daughter's daughter ranked as bandhus in Bombay and Madras. The Bombay school which is most liberal to women, recognised a nunmber of other female heirs, including a half sister, father's sister and women married into the family such as stepmother, son's widow, brother's widow and also many other females classified as bandhus. # During the British Regime However, during the British regime, the country became politically and socially integrated, but the British Government did not venture to interfere with the personal laws of Hindus or of other communities. During this period, however, social reform movements raised the issue of amelioration of the woman's position in society. The earliest legislation bringing females into the scheme of inheritance is the Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, 1929. This Act, conferred inheritance rights on three female heirs i.e. son's daughter, daughter's daughter and sister (thereby creating a limited restriction on the rule of survivorship). Another landmark legislation conferring ownership rights on woman was the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act (XVIII of ) 1937. This Act brought about revolutionary changes in the Hindu Law of all schools, and brought changes not only in the law of coparcenary but also in the law of partition, alienation of property, inheritance and adoption. The Act of 1937 enabled the widow to succeed along with the son and to take a share equal to that of the son. But, the widow did not become a coparcener even though she possessed a right akin to a coparcenary interest in the

property and was a member of the joint family. The widow was entitled only to a limited estate in the property of the deceased with a right to claim partition. A daughter had virtually no inheritance rights. Despite these enactments having brought important changes in the law of succession by conferring new rights of succession on certain females, these were still found to be incoherent and defective in many respects and gave rise to a number of anomalies and left untouched the basic features of discrimination against women. These enactments now stand repealed. # The Indian Constitution The framers of the Indian Constitution took note of the adverse and discriminatory position of women in society and took special care to ensure that the State took positive steps to give her equal status. Articles 14, 15(2) and (3) and 16 of the Constitution of India, thus not only inhibit discrimination against women but in appropriate circumstances provide a free hand to the State to provide protective discrimination in favour of women. These provisions are part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Part IV of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles which are no less fundamental in the governance of the State and inter-alia also provide that the State shall endeavour to ensure equality between man and woman Notwithstanding these constitutional mandates/directives given more than fifty years ago, a woman is still neglected in her own natal family as well as in the family she marries into because of blatant disregard and unjustified violation of these provisions by some of the personal land. # Position after the enactment of Hindu Succession Act,1955 The Hindu Succession Act,1955 reformed the Hindu personal law and gave woman greater property rights, allowing her full ownership rights instead of limited rights in property. The daughters were also granted property rights in their father's estate. In the matter of succession to the property of a Hindu male dying intestate, the Act lays down a set of general rules in sections 8 to 13. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act contain separate general rules affecting succession to the property of a female intestate. Social justice demands that a woman should be treated equally both in the economic and the social sphere. Discrimination against women is so pervasive that it sometimes surfaces on a bare perusal of the law made by the legislature itself. This is particularly so in relation to laws governing the inheritance/succession of property amongst the members of a Joint Hindu family. It seems that this discrimination is so deep and systematic that it as placed women at the receiving end. # Position after the amendment in the Succession Act The Law Commission was concerned with the discrimination inherent in the Mitakshara coparcenary under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as it only consists of male members. The Commission in this regard ascertained the opinion of a cross section of society in order to find out, whether the Mitakshara coparcenary should be retained as provided in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or in an altered form, or it should be totally abolished. There were other questions involved also, like should women be karta in absence of male members ? The Commission's main aim was to end gender discrimination which is apparent in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, by suggesting appropriate amendments to the Act. Accordingly, the amendment was made by the legislature in December 2004 and it conferred equal property share from the ancestral property on the daughter. By birth a daughter would acquire property rights and would be like any other coparcenary. In the face of such multiplicity of succession laws diverse in their nature, property laws continued to be complex and discriminatory against women. The social reform movement during the pre-independence period raised the issue of gender discrimination and a number of ameliorative steps were initiated. Can Women Be Karta ? A questionnaire was issued by the Law Commission to elicit the views of the public regarding giving of rights to a daughter in the Mitakshara property of a Hindu undivided family. This questionnaire consisted of three parts having

21 questions. Sixty-Seven respondents have replied to the questionnaire.1 30 respondents were from the profession of law and the rest comprise sociologists, NGOs etc. About the case of Daughter becoming a Karta in the Joint Family, about half the respondents wanted the daughter to become a Karta in the Joint Family. The normal position of law does not give such a right to a women except under special circumstances. If such a right is sanctioned by law then what will be the pros and cons ? or why should we sanction such a right, for what reasons should a women be allowed to become the manager of a joint family? To answer all these questions we will have to look into arguments which favour the women becoming a Karta and the arguments which do not favour such a disposition. Arguments In Favour # Making her the Karta would make her position more respectable Despite the Constitution guaranteeing equality to women, there are still many discriminatory aspects in the Hindu law in the sphere of property rights. In our society maltreatment of a woman in her husband's family, e.g. for failing to respond to a demand of dowry, often results in her death. But the tragedy is that there is discriminatory treatment given to her even by the members of her own natal family. Thus, if she is made the Karta of the family, then all the members of the family will respect her because of her position and women abuse will be controlled. This will enhance her self-confidence and social worth and give her greater bargaining power for herself and her children, in both parental and marital families.

# After The Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 women are recognized as coparceners. In the Hindu system, ancestral property has traditionally been held by a joint Hindu family consisting of male coparceners. Coparcenary as seen and discussed earlier in the present work is a narrower body of persons within a joint family and consists of father, son, son's son and son's son's son. A coparcenary can also be of a grandfather and a grandson, or of brothers,or an uncle and nephew and so on. Thus ancestral property continues to be governed by a wholly partrilineal regime, wherein property descends only through the male line as only the male members of a joint Hindu family have an interest by birth in the joint or coparcenary property. Since a woman could not be a coparcener, she was not entitled to a share in the ancestral property by birth. A son's share in the property in case the father dies intestate would be in addition to the share he has on birth. But after the amendment daughters have from birth coparcenary rights. So they can be kartas as they are now recognized as coparcenors. # Women are fully capable of managing a business, taking up public life as well as manage large families as mothers. There is still a reluctance to making her a Karta as the general male view is that she is incapable of managing the properties or running the business and is generally susceptible to the influence of her husband and his family, if married. This seems to be patently unfair as women are proving themselves equal to any task and if women are influenced by their husbands and their families, men are no less influenced by their wives and their families. # This will end gender discrimination in Mitakshara coparcenary by including daughters in the system. Since the girl will be the equal inheritor of her ancestral property, the in-laws may not insist on dowry.2 # It is being suggested that the family dwelling will not be "alienated" without her express consent. Thus will make her position stronger. She will now become a member equal to that as any other male member. # Such an act will spread awareness and increase literacy among women as they will be involved in family affairs and they will have a say in business. Arguments Against Women Becoming Karta # Daughters cannot be made karta as they live away from joint family after their marriage the daughter-in-laws do not also originally belong to their in-laws family, and therefore their possibility of becoming a karta is also ruled

out. # If women are made karta then this will lead to involvement of women in business affairs this will lead to disturbed domestic affairs. # The women of a house-hold are usually busy with their domestic work, even if they are made karta they will act on the advice of family members and in most cases where the woman is illiterate then it will just lead to idle members of the joint family prospering at the expense of the hard-working? # What will be the work of the male members if female members of a joint family are made karta. # Women are incapable of managing properties or agriculture, they are incapaable of running a business. # If women are made karta will they be entitled to any kind of maintenance ? this the key issue of the problems which is to be answered. The Judicial View The possibility of female being the Karta in presence of senior male member is being ruled out. But the question is whether in the absence of the manager, whether by prolonged journeys abroad or by dying without leaving another manager to succeed him in his function, a female could act as a manager. No doubt, it is true that he can act as guardian of Hindu Minors by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship act, 1956 but it abstains her from interfering with the exclusive powers of managers to deal with the interests of minors in the Joint Family Property. So, the solution lies in our religious text which is Dharmashastra. It says that alienation can be done by the wife of an absent, or the widow of a dead manager, of family property belonging to numerous minors, unable to enter into contractual relationships in their own persons, yet reasonable for maintaining dependants and carrying the various burdens of the family. Here, the benefit of the family is the touchestone, not the identity of the alienor. The acts of a female member acting as a manager should be positive for the benefit of the Family. Such acts will be binding upon the manager when he returns or appears on the scene by simply coming of age as the case may be. It is further supported by Katyana, Smritichandrika, Bhavasvamin and Yagnavalyka Smriti. Some of the Sanskrit text says "sishyantevasi-dasa-stri-vaiyavrittyakarais ca yat Kutumbahetor ucchinam vodhavyam tat Kutumbina" The manager (or householder, actual or eventual) is liable to accept (or admit) all alienations made for the purposes of the Family by a pupil, apprentice, slave, wife, agent or bailiff. Narada says"Na ca bharya-kritam rinam kathancit patyur abhavet Apat kritad rite, pumsam kutumbartho hi vistarah" A debt contracted by his wife never binds the husband, except that incurred in a time of distress: expenses for the benefit of the family fall upon males. Even at this objection is being raised, Are not women declared by the sastra to be incapable, or unfit for independence? Wherever a male member of the family is available, his signature should be taken rather than that of any females acts. But the answer lies in the following statement. The women in question is de facto svantantra: as soon as the husband returns or her son reaches majority she becomes partantra again, but meanwhile the responsibility rests with her, and powers should obviously be allowed to her accordingly. The Case Laws- In Support The Nagpur position

In Hunoomanpersauds case3 which was one of the greatest cases in the history of Hindu Law dealt with the powers of a widow mother as manager of property of her minor son, and was in reality a case in the context of manager ship rather than guardianship properly so called. The test of the ladys act was not who she was or in what capacity she purported to act, but whether the act was necessary or in the minors interest as understood by the law. In Pandurang Dahake v. Pandurang Gorle4, there the widowed mother passed a promissory note for necessity as guardian of her two minor sons. She was a defacto manager and was held to have managerial powers, and the sons could not repudiate the debt. In I.T Commr. v. Lakshmi Narayan5, the mother as karta of the undivided family consisting of herself and her two minor sons entered into a partnership renewing thereby the partnership which her late husband had had with his brother. The court said that at Dayabhaga law woman could be coparcener and so possibly even managers, and noted that a female might be the manager of a religious endowment. The Act of 1937 has improved the status of the Widow. The Madras Position In Seethabai v.. Narasimha6 there the widows claimed that they were undivided members of the coparcenery by the operation of the act of 21937. They objected to the appointment of a guardian for the property of the minors. The court appointed one widow guardian of one of the minor and a stranger was appointed the guardian of the other. None of the widows it was held that could be a manager. To be a manager one must be a pukka coparcener, a male with a birth right and not a mere statuary interest. In Radha Ammal v. I.Tcommissioner,7 Madras a mother , guardian of minor sons , purported to execute a deed of partnership admitting a stranger as a power in the ancestral business. It was held that this was outside her powers and the deed could not be registered under section 26(a) of the Income Tax Act 1922. A woman could not be a manager. The argument that Hunoomanpersauds case8 allowed the act of a de-facto manager to be binding even if she were a woman, was not decided, much less examined. This was a weak case in Madras decision which was in any case strictly formal and anti-Quarin in approach. The Bombay High Court In Rakhmabai v. Sitabai9 that a step mother as manager of a Joint Family consisting of her co-widow and minor step-son and a minor step daughter and had the power to resist the appointment of a guardian of the property of the step-son. She was the managing the estate and her authority should not, it was urged be undermined by such an appointment. The learned court said that the proper course was to appoint a guardian for the coparcenery Property. A widow could not be a manager of Joint Family Property. The case of Seethabai was agreed with. The Orissa High CourtIn Maguni Padhano v. Lokananidhi Lingaraj10, it was held that a mother, whose husband is alive, cannot be a manager. She might indeed act as guardian of her son, if her husband was dead and perhaps as defacto guardian. But as manager she had no powers whatever. Laxmi Narayans case was not followed. The Principle that a woman could be a manager was decisively rejected. The Patna High Court In Sheogulam v. Kishun Chaudhari11, the court denied that a mother of a minor son, during the long absence of her husband , might act as karta and incur debts for family purposes. All such debts would not be binding upon the family. The case of Maguni was relied upon. On the surface it might seem that Madras has the best of it. But a further examination makes us hesitate. The natural desire that deserted mothers and widows should have ample powers to look after their minor sons interest, acting for necessity or the benefit of the Family, has expressed itself, as things will, in an irregular way, seeing that it was frustrated in expressing itself in some quartes in a regular way.

The Minors Manager Mare Nest Some are also of the view that can a minor be a manager. It is hardly possible as the word manager means one who can make an alienation of property, one who can incur debts that will bind the family. The word is also capable of meaning the one who handles the affairs of the family. Internally, domestically, a minor may well be a manager. But he is not a manager vis-a vis the outside world. Conclusion: Under the Shastric Law, a daughter on marriage ceases to be a member of the parental family, but the Amending Acts have changed her position, which is quite alien to Hindu patriarchal notions. Though her position as defacto manager was recognized when mothers acted as guardians of their minor sons after the death of their husbands, the dejure conferment of the right eluded her. The law commission also has rightly observed that although the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 has conferred upon the daughter of a coparcener status but there is still a reluctance to making her a Karta. This seems to be patently unfair as women are proving themselves equal to any task. Since they can act as coparcenaries then they must also be given the powers of Karta. The shastra is clear that in the absence of senior member a junior member (if he has reached the age of legal competence) may incur debts for the needs of the family, and in the absence of a male member a female member may do so. The Sanskritic texts empower women to act as Karta in instances like when the husband is away or missing or the son is yet to attain majority. Equality for women is not just a matter of equity for the so-called weaker sex, but a measure of the modernity of Indian society and the pragmatic nature of our civilization.

Whether Amendments Made To The Hindu Succession Act Are Achieving Gender Quality?

Chat with us (2 PM - 9 PM IST)

Romit Agrawal, 4th year student, GNLU, Gandhinagar The United Nation's Report in 1980 presented that: "Women constitute half the world's population, perform nearly two-thirds of its hours, receive one-tenth of the world's income and less than one ?hundredth of the property." Since time immemorial the framing of all laws have been exclusively for the benefit of man, and woman has been treated as subservient, and dependent on male support. The right to property is important for the freedom and development of a human being. Prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shastric and customary laws that varied from region to region governed Hindus and sometimes it varied in the same region on a caste basis resulting in diversity in the law. Consequently in matters of succession also, there were different schools, like Dayabhaga in Bengal and the adjoining areas; Mayukha in Bombay, Konkan and Gujarat and Marumakkattayam or Nambudri in Kerala and Mitakshara in other parts of India with slight variations The multiplicity of succession laws in India, diverse in their nature, owing to their varied origin made the property laws even mere complex. Earlier, woman in a joint Hindu family, consisting both of man and woman, had a right to sustenance, but the control and ownership of property did not vest in her. In a patrilineal system, like the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, a woman, was not given a birth right in the family property like a son. Discrimination against women is so pervasive that it sometimes surfaces on a bare perusal of the law made by the legislature itself. This is particularly so in relation to laws governing the inheritance/succession of property amongst the members of a Joint Hindu family. It seems that this discrimination is so deep and systematic that it has placed women at the receiving end. Recognizing this the Law Commission [1] in pursuance of its terms of reference, which, inter alia, oblige and empower it to make recommendations for the removal of anomalies, ambiguities and inequalities in the law, they decided to undertake a study of certain provisions regarding the property rights of

Hindu women under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Background A woman in a joint Hindu family, consisting both of man and woman, had a right to sustenance, but the control and ownership of property did not vest in her. In a patrilineal system, like the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, a woman, was not given a birth right in the family property like a son. Under the Mitakshara law, on birth, the son acquires a right and interest in the family property. According to this school, a son, grandson and a greatgrandson constitute a class of coparcenars, based on birth in the family. No female is a member of the coparcenary in Mitakshara law. Under the Mitakshara system, joint family property devolves by survivorship within the coparcenary. This means that with every birth or death of a male in the family, the share of every other surviving male either gets diminished or enlarged. If a coparcenary consists of a father and his two sons, each would own one third of the property. If another son is born in the family, automatically the share of each male is reduced to one fourth. The Mitakshara law also recognises inheritance by succession but only to the property separately owned by an individual, male or female. Females are included as heirs to this kind of property by Mitakshara law. Before the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act 1929, the Bengal, Benares and Mithila subschools of Mitakshara recognised only five female relations as being entitled to inherit namely - widow, daughter, mother, paternal grandmother, and paternal great-grandmother [2]. The Madras sub-school recognised the heritable capacity of a larger number of females heirs that is of the son's daughter, daughter's daughter and the sister, as heirs who are expressly named as heirs in Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 [3]. The son's daughter and the daughter's daughter ranked as bandhus in Bombay and Madras. The Bombay school which is most liberal to women, recognised a number of other female heirs, including a half sister, father's sister and women married into the family such as stepmother, son's widow, brother's widow and also many other females classified as bandhus. The Dayabhaga school neither accords a right by birth nor by survivorship though a joint family and joint property is recognized. It lays down only one mode of succession and the same rules of inheritance apply whether the family is divided or undivided and whether the property is ancestral or selfacquired. Neither sons nor daughters become coparceners at birth nor do they have rights in the family property during their father's life time. However, on his death, they inherit as tenants-in-common. It is a notable feature of the Dayabhaga School that the daughters also get equal shares along with their brothers. Since this ownership arises only on the extinction of the father's ownership none of them can compel the father to partition the property in his lifetime and the latter is free to give or sell the property without their consent. Therefore, under the Dayabhaga law, succession rather than survivorship is the rule. If one of the male heirs dies, his heirs, including females such as his wife and daughter would become members of the joint property, not in their own right, but representing him. Since females could be coparceners, they could also act as kartas, and manage the property on behalf of the other members in the Dayabhaga School. However, during the British regime, the country became politically and socially integrated, but the British Government did not venture to interfere with the personal laws of Hindus or of other communities. During this period, however, social reform movements raised the issue of amelioration of the woman's position in society. The earliest legislation bringing females into the scheme of inheritance is the Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, 1929. This Act, conferred inheritance rights on three female heirs, i.e., son's daughter, daughter's daughter and sister (thereby creating a limited restriction on the rule of survivorship). Another landmark legislation conferring ownership rights on woman was the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act (XVIII of) 1937. This Act brought about revolutionary changes in the Hindu Law of all schools, and brought changes not only in the law of coparcenary but also in the law of partition, alienation of property, inheritance and adoption. [4] The Act of 1937 enabled the widow to succeed along with the son and to take a share equal to that of the son. But, the widow did not become a coparcener even though she possessed a right akin to a coparcenary interest in the property and was a member of the joint family. The widow was entitled only to a limited estate in the property of the deceased with a right to claim partition [5]. A daughter had virtually no inheritance rights. Despite these enactments having brought important changes in the law of succession by conferring new rights of succession on certain females, these were still found to be incoherent and defective in many respects and gave rise to a number of anomalies and left untouched the basic features of discrimination against women. These enactments now stand repealed.

The framers of the Indian Constitution took note of the adverse and discrimnatory position of women in society and took special care to ensure that the State took positive steps to give her equal status. Articles 14, 15(2) and (3) and 16 of the Constitution of India, thus not only inhibit discrimination against women but in appropriate circumstances provide a free hand to the State to provide protective discrimination in favour of women. These provisions are part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Part IV of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles which are no less fundamental in the governance of the State and inter alia also provide that the State shall endeavor to ensure equality between man and woman. Notwithstanding these constitutional mandates/directives given more than fifty years ago, a woman is still neglected in her own natal family as well as in the family she marries into because of blatant disregard and unjustified violation of these provisions by some of the personal laws. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India expressed his unequivocal commitment to carry out reforms to remove the disparities and disabilities suffered by Hindu women. As a consequence, despite the resistance of the orthodox section of the Hindus, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted and came into force on 17th June, 1956. It applies to all the Hindus including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. It lays down a uniform and comprehensiye system of inheritance and applies to those governed both by the Mitakshara and the Dayabahaga Schools and also to those in South India governed by the the Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana, Nambudri and other systems of Hindu Law. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 : - Gender Position Before 2005 Amendment The very preamble of the Act signifies that an Act to amend and codify t law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. The Act aims to lay down an uniform law of succession whereas attempt has been made to ensure equality inheritance rights between sons and daughters. It applies to all Hindus including Budhists, Jains and Sikhs. It lays down an uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and .applies to those governed by the Mitakshara and Dayabha schools as well as other [6] schools. The Hindu Succession Act reformed the Hindu personal law and gave women greater property rights, allowing her f ownership rights instead of limited rights in property. The daughters were also granted property rights in their father's estate. In the matter of succession of property of a Hindu male dying intestate, the Act lays, down a set of general rules in sections 8 to 13. Sections 15 and 16 of the act contain separate general rules affecting succession to the property of a fem intestate. Under section 8 of the Act three Classes [7] of heirs recognized by Mitakshara Law and three Classes[8] of heirs recognised by Dayabhaga Law cease exist in case of devolution taking place after coming into force of the Act. The heirs are divided into instead, four Classes viz: (i) Heirs in Class I of the Schedule (ii) Heirs in Class II of the Schedule (iii) Agnates, and (iv) Cognates. Of course mother, widow, son and daughter are primary heirs. In the absence of Class I heirs, the property devolves on Class II heirs and in their absence first on agnates and then on cognates. Still some sections of the Act came under criticism evoking controversy as being favourable to continue inequality on the basis of gender. One such provision has been the retention of mitakshara coparcenary with only males as coparceners [9]. As per the Law Commission Report, coparcenary constitutes a narrower body of persons within a joint family and consists of father, son, son's son and son's son's son. Thus ancestral property continues to be governed by a wholly patrilineal regime, wherein property descends only through the male line as only the male members of a Joint Hindu Family have an interest by birth in the coparcenary property, in contradiction with the absolute or separate property of an individual coparcener, devolve upon surviving coparceners in the family, according to the rule of devolution by survivorship. Since a woman could not be a coparcener, she was not entitled to a share in the ancestral property by birth.Section 6 of the Act, although it does not interfere with the special rights of I those who are members of a mitaksltara coparcenary, recognises, without abolishing joint family property, the right upon death of a coparcener, of certain members of his preferential heirs to claim an interest in the property that would have been allotted to such coparcener if a parititon [10] of the joint family property had in fact taken place immediately before his death.

Thus section 6 of the Act, while recognising the rule of devolution by survivorship among the members of the coparcenary, makes an exception to the rule in the proviso. According to the proviso, if the deceased has left a surviving female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule I or a male relative specified in that Class who claims through such female relation, the interest of a deceased in mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary of intestate succession under the Act and not as survivorship [11]. Thus non-conclusion of women as coparceners in the joint family property under the mitakshara system as reflected in section 6 of the Act relating to devolution of interest in coparcenary property, has been under criticism for being violative of the equal rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution in relation to property rights. This means that females cannot inherit ancestral property as males do. If a joint family gets divided, each male coparcener takes his share and females get nothing. Only when one of the coparceners dies, a female gets share of his interest as an heir to the deceased. Further as per the proviso to section 6 of the Act, the interest of the deceased male in the mitakshara coparcenary devolve by intestate succession firstly upon the heirs specified in Class I of Schedule I. Under this Schedule there are only four primary heirs, namely son, daughter, widow and mother. For the remaining eight, the principle of representation goes up to two degrees in the male line of descent. But in the female line of descent, it goes only upto one degree. Thus the son's son's son and the son's son's daughter get a share but a daughter's daughter's son and daughter's daughter's daughter do not get anything. Again as per section 23 of the Act married daughter is denied the right to residence in the parental home unless widowed, deserted or separated from her husband and female heir has been disentitled to ask for partition in respect of dwelling house wholly occupied by members of joint family until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein. These provisions have been identified as major sources of disabilities thrust by law on woman. Another controversy is the establishment of the right to will the property. A man has full testamentary power over his property including his interest in the coparcenary. On the whole the Hindu Succession Act [12] gave a weapon to a man to deprive a woman of the rights she earlier had under certain schools of Hindu Law. The legal right of Hindus to bequeath property by way of will was conferred by the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - A Prologue: This amending Act of 2005 is an attempt to remove the discrimination as contained in the amended section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu mitakshara coparcenary property as to sons have. Simultaneously section 23 of the Act as disentitles the female heir to ask for partition in respect of dwelling house wholly occupied by a Joint Family until male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein, was omitted by this Amending Act. As a result the disabilities of female heirs were removed. ?This is a great step of the government so far the Hindu Code is concerned. This is the product of 174th Report of the Law Commission of India on "Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reform under the Hindu Law". First, the 2005 act, by deleting a major gender discriminatory clause - Section 4 (2) of the 1956 HSA - has made women's inheritance rights in agricultural land equal to men's. Section 4(2) excluded from the purview of the HSA significant interests in agricultural land, the inheritance of which was subject to the succession rules specified in state-level tenurial laws. Especially in the north-western states, these laws were highly gender unequal and gave primacy to male lineal descendants in the male line of descent. Women came very low in the succession order and got only a limited estate. The new legislation brings male and female rights in agricultural land on par for all states, overriding any inconsistent state laws. This can potentially benefit millions of women dependent on agriculture for survival. Second, the 2005 act makes all daughters, including married ones, coparceners in joint family property. The 1956 HSA distinguished between separate property and joint family property. The separate property of a (non-matrilineal) Hindu male dying intestate (without leaving a will) went equally to his class I heirs, viz, son, daughter, widow and mother (and specified heirs of predeceased children). On joint family property, those previously governed by `Mitakshara' (prevailing in most of India) differed from those governed by `Dayabhaga' (prevailing in Bengal and Assam). For the latter, joint family property devolved like separate property. But in Mitakshara joint family property, while the deceased man's "notional" share went intestate to all class I heirs

(including females) in equal parts; sons, as coparceners, additionally had a direct birthright to an independent share. Sons could also demand partition of the joint family property; daughters could not. The 2005 act does not touch separate property. But it makes daughters coparceners in the Mitakshara joint family property, with the same birthrights as sons to shares and to seek partition. In addition, the act makes the heirs of predeceased sons and daughters more equal. Third, the 2005 act by deleting Section 23 of the 1956 HSA gives all daughters (including those married) the same rights as sons to reside in or seek partition of the parental dwelling house. Section 23 disallowed married daughters (unless separated, deserted or widowed) even residence rights in the parental home, and unmarried daughters had rights of residence but not partition. Fourth, the legislation removes a discriminatory section which barred certain widows from inheriting the deceased's property, if they had remarried. According to the amending Act of 2005, in a Joint Hindu Family governed by the mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall, also by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son heir. She shall have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. She shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son and any reference to a Hindu mitakshara coparencer shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter. But this provision shall not apply to a daughter married before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005. This provision shall not affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before 20th December, 2004.Further any property to which female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of above provision shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, as property capable of being disposed of by her by will and other testamentary disposition. The provision was also made that where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu Family governed by the Mitakshara Law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession under the Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place. Further the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son. The provision was also made that the share of the predeceased son or a predeceased daughter as they would have got, had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter. Further the share of the pre-deceased child of a predeceased son or of a pre deceased daughter as such child would have got, had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such predeceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter. The most important fact is that the interest of a Hindu mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property bad taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. This amending Act of 2005 has also clear provision that, after commencement of the Amending Act of 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great grandfather (on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu Law), of such son, grandson or great grandson to discharge any such debt. But if any debt contracted before the commencement this Amending Act of 2005 the right of any creditor, to proceed against son, grandson or great grandson, shall not affect or any alienation relating to any such debt or right shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been. enforceable as if Hindu Succession Amending Act of 2005 had not been enacted. Further for the purpose of creditors right stated above the expression son, grandson or great grandson shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great grandson who was born or adopted prior to the commencement (9th September, 2005) of the Amending Act of 2005. Such provisions shall not apply to a partition which has been done before 20th December, 2004. Sections 23 and 24 omitted. Likewise special provisions relating to rights in respect of dwelling house and the disentitlement rights of widow's remarrying, respectively omitted from the Act. The Amending Act also in the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 added new heirs viz, son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter daughter of a pre-deceased daughter, son of a

pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased son. Thus the amendment of Hindu Succession Act of 1956 in 2005 is a total commitment for the women empowerment and protection of women's right to property. This Amending Act in a partrilineal system, like mitakshara School of Hindu Law opened the door for the women, to have the birth right in the family property like the son. The women were vested the right of control and ownership of property beyond their right to sustenance. Amendments To The Hindu Succession Act And Gender Equality The recent legislative proposals amending the Hindu Succession Act are important steps towards gender equality and abolition of the patrilineal system of inheritance prevailing among Hindus. These proposals are based on the 174th Report of the Law Commission published in 2000 and seek to give Hindu women equal rights in the Mitakshara Joint Family Property. The proposed Bill also seeks to do away with Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act which denies a woman the right to seek partition of an inherited ?dwelling? unit / house if other male heirs are residing in it and further restricts her right to reside in the inherited residence unless she is a widow or has been separated from or deserted by her husband. However, the proposed changes are not comprehensive enough and women will still be subjected to unequal property rights in agricultural land as Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act allows for special State laws to address the issue of fragmentation of agricultural holdings, fixation of ceiling and devolution of tenancy rights in these holdings. Thus, State laws exist in Delhi, U.P, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab & Haryana, which deny women equal rights of succession in tenancy rights. Further, certain other Sections of the Hindu Succession Act discriminate against women through the discriminatory order of succession for male & female heirs. The proposed Amendments to the Mitakshara Joint Family Property laws making women equal coparceners are sought to be made applicable only to women who are not married at the time the law is passed and is thus patently unjust also. When the Hindu Succession Act was passed in 1956, the Mitakshara coparcenery system was retained and the then Government refused to abolish this system of Joint family in spite of contrary recommendations by the Select Committee and protest by AIWC. Under the Mitakshra System of Joint Family, which prevails in all parts of India apart from Bengal only males are members (coparceners) of the Joint Family and the right to inheritance was by way of survivorship and not by way of succession . The son acquired a right and interest in Joint Family Property on birth while a woman family member only had a right to maintenance. However the Hindu Succession Act gave a share to the first class female heirs (daughters and wives) in the share of the father / husband in the joint family property who died intestate (without making a will). However this share was not equal to the share, which a son inherited, since the son was deemed to be coparcener (member of the joint family) by birth. For e.g. in a joint family consisting of a father, a son and a daughter, both the father and the son, according to the Mitakshara coparcenary system , would be equal owners of the property. Thus when the father died, after the 1956 Act, his share would devolve equally on both the son and daughter. However the daughter in this particular case would only get 1/4th share of the property whereas the brother who was already a co owner would have his half share plus 1/4th share of the property. The Amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet proposes to make the daughter also a coparcener in the Joint Family Property. It is pertinent to point out that some states like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamilnadu have already passed laws making the daughter a member (coparcener) of the joint family while other states like Kerala have completely abolished the joint family system. This could be done as laws of succession fall in Entry 5 of the concurrent list of the VIII th Schedule to the Constitution. It is relevant to note that the Hindu Code Bill, as originally framed by the B.N.Rao committee and piloted by Dr B.R.Ambedkar, had recommended abolishing the Mitakshara coparcenery with its concept of survivorship and the son?s right by birth in a joint family system and substitute it with a principle of inheritance by succession. In fact, AIDWA had also during the Dowry Prohibition Act amendments in early 1980s, asked for abolition of the Joint family System. In this sense the Amendment doesn't go far away. The other Amendment, which was cleared by the Cabinet, was to abolish Section- 23 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. This provision

denies a married daughter the right to residence in an inherited parental home unless she is widowed, deserted or separated from her husband. The section further denies the daughter, who has inherited a house along with a male member of a family from asking for her share of the property if any member of the family resides in the inherited house, until the male heirs also agreed. However, no such restriction has been placed by the Section 23 on a male heir. Apart from this the proposed amendment seeks to make the new law applicable only to those women who are not married at the date of the amendment. This provision is based on the Maharashtra Law and is said to be made on the presumption that women, who are married have already received their share of property etc. as dowry / gift during their marriage. This is patently unfair not only because many women may not have received dowry but also because the amount of dowry received can hardly be equated to equal rights in property. In reality this is a devise to restrict the number of women, who inherit and to maintain status quo as far as possible. Apart from the obvious discrimination in Section 6 and Section 23 discussed above, certain other sections of Hindu Succession Act also blatantly discriminate against women and require amendment. The most important section, which has been used to deny property rights to women in agricultural land, is Section 4 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, which allows for State legislation to prevail over the Hindu Succession Act. This Section states that the Act shall not apply to laws ?providing for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for fixation of ceilings or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings?. Judgments under this Section have upheld laws under Section 4 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act and have mostly denied women equal rights in agricultural land. While some courts have held that the Hindu Succession Act will apply to agricultural holding, this can only be in the absence of State laws for the purposes mentioned in Section 4 (2) or if the States laws under Section 4(2) themselves apply the Hindu Succession Act or personal laws to ?devolution of tenancy rights?. Courts have upheld the State Land Reform Acts, relating to devolution of tenancy rights even though these do not allow women to inherit these tenancies. Some courts have further interpreted the term ?devolution? of tenancy rights broadly / comprehensively to include devolution of tenure holder's right and have thus also denied women ownership rights over agricultural land. Thus even laws meant for land reform and to enforce ceiling have resulted in denying to women equal rights over land and a chance to improve her disempowered status. Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act allows any Hindu to dispose off his property including his share in the Joint Family Property by will. As has been pointed by women's organizations/ groups and activists this Section can and has been used to disinherit women. It has been recommended by many that a limitation should be placed on the right to will. Such a provision exists in Muslim law where a Muslim can only Will away up to a maximum of -1/3rd of his property. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act which specifies how the property of a female Hindu will devolve also contains certain discriminatory provisions. It states that in the absence of class I heirs( son, daughters & husband) the property of a female Hindu will go to her husband's heirs and only if these heirs are not then will the property devolve upon her mother and father. However, in the absence of the mother and father, the property will again devolve upon the heirs of the father and only if there are no heirs of father will the property devolve upon the heirs of the mother. The proviso to Section-6 of Hindu Succession Act contains another instance of gender bias. The proviso states that the property of the deceased in the Mitakshara Coparcenary shall devolve by intestate succession if the deceased had a female heir or a male heir who claims through such female relative. In order to appreciate the gender bias it is necessary to see the rules of devolution of interest under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. In this section there are only four primary heirs in the Schedule to class I, namely, mother, widow, son and daughter. If, however, for example the son or daughter has already died, their children can inherit the property. The principle of representation goes up to two degree in the male line of descent; but in the female line of descent it goes only upto one degree. Accordingly, the deceased son's son's son and son's son's daughter get a share but a deceased daughter's daughter's son and daughter's daughter's daughter do not get anything. A further infirmity is that a widow of a pre-deceased son and grandson are class-I heirs, but the husbands of a deceased daughter or granddaughter are not heirs.

Critical Appraisal Of Amendments To The Hindu Succession Act The recent amendment to the Hindu Succession Act has made the daughter a member of the coparcenary. It also gives daughters an equal share in agricultural property. These are significant advancements towards gender equality. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill 2004, passed unanimously by the Lok Sabha, comes after a long gap: the Hindu Succession Act was passed in 1956. The present debate about removing discrimination against women to a large extent remains confined to the experts. The law, obtuse at the best of times, takes on an even more tedious character when it comes to inheritance laws. For almost half a century since the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, there has been the widespread belief that under Hindu personal law daughters are equal to sons. This belief was based on Section 10 of the Act dealing with the distribution of property of a Hindu who has died without making a will, referred to as ?intestate? in law. The provision unequivocally declares that property is to be distributed equally among Class I heirs, as specified in the schedule. The schedule clearly lays down daughters, mothers and widows as Class I heirs entitled to a share equal to that of sons. This, though seemingly a huge step in favour of gender justice, was in fact more a sleight of hand. The mischief lay in customary Hindu law and the concept of mitakshara coparcenary property. A Hindu joint family consists of a common ancestor and all his lineal male descendants, together with wives or widows and unmarried daughters. The existence of a common ancestor, necessary to bring a joint Hindu family into existence, continues even after the death of the ancestor. Upper links are removed and lower ones are added; the joint family can continue indefinitely. Except in the case of adoption, no outsiders are permitted and membership to the joint family is by birth or marriage to a male member. A Hindu joint family is a unit and is represented by the karta or head. The Hindu Succession Act retained the coparcenary. In fact, Section 6 specifically declares that, on death, the interest of a male Hindu in mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by survivorship to other members of the coparcenary and not by succession under the Act. However, it laid down that the separate share of the deceased, computed through the device of adeemed partition just before his death, would devolve according to the Succession Act. The Act did not clearly spell out the implications of exclusion from membership to the coparcenary in respect of inheritance of property. Thus, if a widowed Hindu male died leaving a son and a daughter, then, according to the explanation in Section 6 of the Act, there will be deemed to be a partition just before the death of the person. In this deemed or ?notional? partition, the father and son share equally and each gets half the property. The father's half will be shared equally by his son and daughter as Class I heirs. In effect, therefore, the daughter gets onefourth of the property, while the son gets his own half from the deemed partition as a coparcener and an additional half from the share of his father. Together that would be three-fourths of the property. It is this inequity between son and daughter that has now been removed by the amendment. The preferential right by birth of sons in joint family property, with the offering of shradha for the spiritual benefit and solace of ancestors, have for centuries been considered sacred and inviolate. It has also played a major role in the blatant preference for sons in Indian society. This amendment, in one fell swoop, has made the daughter a member of the coparcenary and is a significant advancement towards gender equality. After the amendment, daughters will now get a share equal to that of sons at the time of the notional partition, just before the death of the father, and an equal share of the father's separate share. However, the position of the mother vis-a-vis the coparcenary stays the same. She, not being a member of the coparcenary, will not get a share at the time of the notional partition. The mother will be entitled to an equal share with other Class I heirs only from the separate share of the father computed at the time of the notional partition. In effect, the actual share of the mother will go down, as the separate share of the father will be less as the property will now be equally divided between father, sons and daughters in the notional partition. The original bill, introduced in 2004, exempted agricultural land from the purview of the amendment. A

considerable section of society is totally against equal shares to daughters with respect to agricultural land. The inclusion of agricultural land in the amendment, giving equal shares to daughters and overriding state-level discriminatory tenurial laws, is a great credit to parliament. Effective lobbying by women's groups must also be given due credit. The equal sharing of the father's property applies in cases where he dies intestate -- that is, without making a will. Given the bias and preference for sons and notions of lineage, discrimination against daughters in inheritance through wills is bound to remain. In most cases, the terms of the will would favour the son. Perhaps the share of property that can be willed by a person could be restricted, as a step towards greater gender equality. For example, Islamic jurisprudence lays down that a person can only will one-third of his property. Provisions to check the prevalent practice of ?persuading? daughters to give up their share in joint family property is another area that requires attention. This is an opportune time to keep up the momentum for further reforms to reduce gender inequities and move towards a more equal society. The amendment will only benefit those women who are born into families that have ancestral property. There is no precise definition of ancestral property. Given the fact that families have long since been fragmented and the fact that the joint family system is on the decline, it is not at all clear whom this law will benefit. It cannot apply to selfacquired property. No person by birth will acquire any rights in self-acquired property. In today's context, most property is self-acquired and that property must follow principles of succession under the different succession laws. Moreover, its owner can dispose off such property during his lifetime by gift. It can be bequeath by will to anyone of his choice. The proposed amendment notwithstanding, a Hindu father can disinherit his wife or daughter by will, in his self-acquired property. The amendment therefore by itself cannot offer much to Hindu women. What is more, under the laws of certain states, it will actually disadvantage widows, as the share of the daughter will increase in comparison to the widow. The amendment is not at all well thought out and can play women against each other. There is no equity in that. Thus, though seemingly progressive, it does nothing more than make a political point, that the state is committed to abolishing discrimination against women, but only Hindu women. The position of women married into the joint family will actually become worse. The proposed amendment only makes the position of the female members of the joint family worse. With a daughter along with the sons acquiring a birthright, which she can presumably partition at any time, the rights of other members of the joint family get correspondingly diminished. While the reforms of the 1950s disadvantaged a divorced wife, the reforms of the present times will disadvantage married women as well. Until now, the only protection women had in the marital home was the status of being married, which carried with it the right to be maintained, not only by the husband, but by the joint family and its assets as a whole. Thus married women who lived in a joint Hindu family had the protection of the family home. This protection will now stand eroded, to the extent that the total divisible amount gets reduced. Something similar will happen to Hindu widows. Daughters will acquire a birthright in Hindu joint family property, mothers stand to lose a portion of the cake, as an inheritance. Since Hindu law does not grant any rights to wives in marital property, their only chance of getting anything was on an inheritance, as equal share with the sons and daughters, if the marriage was subsisting on the death of the husband. On divorce, of course, even that right to inheritance disappears. It is birthright in Hindu law that is the root of the problem. Birthright by definition is a conservative institution, belonging to the era of feudalism, coupled as it was with the rule of primogeniture and the inalienability of land. When property becomes disposable and selfacquired, different rules of succession have to apply. It is in the making of those rules that gender justice has to be located. What the proposed amendment does is to reinforce the birthright without working out its consequences for all women. Justice cannot be secured for one category of women at the expense of another. It is impossible to deal with succession laws in isolation. One has to simultaneously look at laws of matrimonial property, divorce and succession to ensure a gender just regime of laws. The present bill does nothing of the kind. The exercise should be abandoned in toto. Conclusion Empowerment of women, leading to an equal social status in society hinges, among other things, on their right to

hold and inherit property. Several legal reforms have taken place since independence in India, including on equal share of daughters to property. Yet equal status remains illusive. Establishment of laws and bringing practices in conformity thereto is necessarily a long drawn out process. The government, the legislature, the judiciary, the media and civil society has to perform their roles, each in their own areas of competence and in a concerted manner for the process to be speedy and effective. These amendments can empower women both economically and socially. and have far-reaching benefits for the family and society. Independent access to agricultural land can reduce a woman and her family's risk of poverty, improve her livelihood options, and enhance prospects of child survival, education and health. Women owning land or a house also face less risk of spousal violence. And land in women's names can increase productivity by improving credit and input access for numerous de facto female household heads. Making all daughters coparceners like wise has far-reaching implications. It gives women birthrights in joint family property that cannot be willed away. Rights in coparcenary property and the dwelling house will also provide social protection to women facing spousal violence or marital breakdown, by giving them a potential shelter. Millions of women - as widows and daughters - and their families thus stand to gain by these amendments. End Notes 1. 174th Report of Law Commission of India under the Chairmanship of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, vide D.O. No. 6(3)(59)/99-LC(LS), dated 5th May, 2000. 2. Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law (1998 17th ed. by SA Desai), p. 168. 3. Ibid. 4. Mayne's, Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage, (1996 14th Edn., edt. by Alladi Kuppuswami p. 1065. 5. M. Indira Devi, "Woman's Assertion of Legal Rights to Ownership of property" in Women & Law Contemporary Problems, (1994 edt. by L. Sarkar & B. Sivaramayya) p. 174; also section 3(3) of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. 6. Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantans and Nambudri. 7. Gotraja, Sapindas, Samanodlakas and Bandhus 8. Sapindas, Sakulyas and Bandhus 9. 7th Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee dated 13th May, 2005. 10. Notional partition. 11. 7th Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee 12. Before amendment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in 2005

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Hindu-Succession-act-2005-status-ofwomen-born-before-1956-79356.asp http://ecopackindia.blogspot.com/2010/04/full-text-of-hindu-successionact2005.html http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/keyword/hindu-succession-act