Joint Hindu Family an Affectionate Business Definition

                                       
                                       
                      Back to Law Commission Home Page                              
                                       
                      LAW COMMISSION�              OF INDIA                              
                                                                                               
                      174TH              REPORT                                                                            
                                                                                               
                      ON                              
                                       

�Property Rights of Women:

Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law�.

MAY, 2000

 

 

D.O. No.6(3)(59)/99-LC(LS)

May 5, 2000

Dear Shri Jethmalaniji,

��������� I am forwarding herewith the 174th Report on �Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law�.

2.������ In pursuance of its terms of reference, which inter alia, oblige and empower the Commission to make recommendations for the removal of anomalies, ambiguities and inequalities in the law, the Commission undertook a study of certain provisions regarding the property rights of Hindu women under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.� The Commission had taken up the aforesaid subject suo motu in view of the pervasive discrimination prevalent against women in relation to laws governing the inheritance/succession of property amongst the members of a joint Hindu family.���

3.������ Social justice demands that a woman should be treated equally both in the economic and the social sphere.� The exclusion of daughters from participating in coparcenery property ownership merely by reason of their sex is unjust.� The Commission has also taken into consideration the changes carried out by way of State enactments in the concept of Mitakshara coparcenery property in the five States in India, namely, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka. The Commission feels that further reform of the Mitakshara Law of Coparcenery is needed to provide equal distribution of property both to men and women. The recommendations contained in the Report are aimed at suggesting changes in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 so that women get an equal share in the ancestral property.���

4.������ With a view to giving effect to the recommendations, a Bill entitled �Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill, 2000�� is annexed with the Report as Appendix �A�.

5.������ We hope that the recommendations in this Report will go a long way in attaining the objectives set out above.

��������� With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

(B.P. Jeevan Reddy)

Shri Ram Jethmalani,

Minister for Law, Justice & Co. Affairs,

Shastri Bhavan,

New Delhi

������������������������� TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                      Sl. No                                                      
                  ������������������                                                        CONTENTS                                                      
                                      �1.                                  
                                      CHAPTER -I�����������������������������������                                                                                                  
                  (INTRODUCTION)                
                                      �2.                                  
                                      CHAPTER -II����������������������������������                                                                                                  
                  (SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - A STUDY)                
                                      �3.                                  
                                      CHAPTER -III���������������������������������                                                                                                  
                  (COPARCENARY:�                    RELEVANCE AND ALTERNATIVES)                
                                      �4.                                  
                                      CHAPTER -IV���                                            ������������������������������                                                                                                  
                  (QUESTIONNAIRE AND ITS RESPONSES)                
                                      �5.                                  
                                      CHAPTER -V�����������������������������������                                                                                                  
                  (CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS)                                  
                                      �6.                                  
                                      APPENDIX - A���������������������������������                                            �                                          (THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDEMENT) BILL, 2000)                
                                      �7.                                  
                                      ANNEXURE - I����������                                                                                                  
(QUESTIONNAIRE - LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA)                
                                      �8.                                  
                                      ANNEXURE - II��������������������������������                                                                                                  
                  (ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE LAW COMMISSION)                
                                      �9.                                  
                                      ANNEXURE - III�������������������������������                                                                                                  
                  (WORKING PAPER ON COPARCENARY RIGHTS TO DAUGHTERS UNDER THE HINDU LAW)                
                  10.                                  
                                      ANNEXURE - IV��������������������������������                                                                                                  
                  THE KERALA JOINT HINDU FAMILY SYSTEM                                                                                                                                    
                  (ABOLITION) ACT, 1975                                                                        
                                                                                                                 
                  THE HINDU SUCCESSION (ANDHRA PRADESH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1986                                  
                                                                                                                 
                  THE HINDU SUCCESSION (TAMIL NADU AMENDMENT) ACT, 1989                                  
                                      �����                                        �                                                                          
                  THE HINDU SUCCESSION (KARNATAKA AMENDMENT) ACT, 1994                                  
                                      �����                                        �                                                                          
                  THE HINDU SUCCESSION (MAHARASHTRA AMENDMENT) ACT, 1994                
                                                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                      CHAPTER�              - I                              
                                                                                               
                      INTRODUCTION                              
                                       
          ��������                    1.1          ��          SCOPE
                                       
          ��������                    �                    ���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�          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,
          ��������          decided�          to�          undertake�          a�          study�          of�          certain provisions
          ��������          regarding the property rights of Hindu women�          under�          the
          ��������          Hindu Succession�          Act,�          1956.���          The�          study�          is aimed at
          ��������          suggesting changes to this Act�          so�          that�          women�          get�          an
          ��������          equal share in the ancestral property.
                                       
          ��������                    1.2          Issuing��          of��          Questionnaire��          and�          holding�          of
          ������������          Workshop
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ���Before any amendment in the�          law�          is�          suggested
          ��������          with�          a�          view�          to�          reform the existing law, it is proper
          ��������          that opinion is elicited by way of placing the�          proposed
          ��������          amendments�          before�          the public and obtaining their views
          ��������          and if�          possible�          by�          holding          �workshops��          etc.�����          The
          ��������          Commission�          thus�          decided�          to�          have�          the widest possible
          ��������          interaction with a cross section�          of�          society�          including
          ��������          judges,�����          lawyers,����          scholars,����          Non-governmental
          ��������          Organizations (NGO'S) etc.�          by issuing a�          questionnaire.
          ��������          Their�          views�          were�          also�          elicited�          on�          several�          of�          the
          ��������          provisions�          introduced�          by�          certain�          State�          Legislatures
          ��������          regarding�          the�          property rights of Hindu women which had
          ��������          been brought about by way of an amendment to�          the�          Hindu
          ��������          Succession Act,�          1956.���          The�          main�          focus/thrust of the
          ��������          questionnaire (annexed as�          Annexure�          I)�          was�          to�          elicit
          ��������          views on three issues namely:-
                                       
          ��������                    �����          i) granting�          daughters�          coparcenary�          rights in the
          �����������������          ancestral property; or to totally�          abolish�          the
          �����������������          right by birth given only to male members;
                                       
          ��������                    �����          ii) allowing�          daughters�          full right of residence in
          �����������������          their parental dwelling house; and
                                       
          ��������                    �����          iii) restricting the power of a person�          to�          bequeath
          �����������������          property�          by�          way�          of�          testamentary disposition
          �����������������          extending�          to�          one-half�          or�          one-third�          of�          the
          �����������������          property.
                                       
          ��������                    1.2.1                    The Commission received replies in response�          to
          ��������          the questionnaire.�          These replies have been analysed and
          ��������          tabulated and this is annexed as Annexure II.
                                       
          ��������                    1.2.2.          Aiming at a wider and more intense�          interaction
          ��������          the�          Law�          Commission          �in collaboration with the ILS, Law
          ��������          College and Vaikunthrao Dempo Trust of Goa, organised�          a
          ��������          two�          day�          workshop�          on�          "Property�          Rights of Hindu Women
          ��������          proposed Reforms" in Pune on 28-29�          August,�          1999.���          At
          ��������          this�          Workshop�          the�          Chairman�          and�          members�          of�          the Law
          ��������          Commission�          held�          detailed�          discussions��          with��          eminent
          ��������          lawyers and NGO'S and teachers of ILS Law College, Pune.
          ��������          A Working Paper on Coparcenary Rights to Daughters Under
          ��������          Hindu Law�          along with a draft bill was circulated.�          This
          ��������          is annexed as Annexure-III.
                                       
          ��������                    1.2.3                    The Law Commission has carefully considered all
          ��������          the�          replies�          and the discussion at the workshop at Pune
          ��������          before formulating�          its�          recommendations�          to�          amend�          the
          ��������          Hindu�          Succession�          Act,�          1956�          with a view to giving the
          ��������          Hindu women, an equal right to succeed to the�          ancestral
          ��������          property.
          ��������                  
          ����          ���                    ��          1.3          The Background
          ��������                    �������������          Since�          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, 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.
                                       
          ��������                    1.3.1.          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.
                                       
          ��������                    1.3.2                    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�          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.
                                       
          ��������                    1.3.3                    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-grand
          ��������          mother.1�          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,1929.2 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.
                                       
          ��������                    1.3.4                    The Dayabhaga school neither accords a right by
          ��������          birth nor by survivorship�          though�          a�          joint�          family�          and
          ��������          joint property�          is�          recognised.���          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�          self-acquired.
          ��������          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�          alongwith�          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.
                                       
          ��                    ������          1.3.5                    In�          the Marumakkattayam law, which prevailed in
          ��������          Kerala�          wherein�          the�          family�          was�          joint,�          a��          household
          ��������          consisted�          of�          the�          mother�          and�          her children with joint
          ��������          rights in property.�          The lineage was traced through�          the
          ��������          female line.��          Daughters and their children were thus an
          ��������          integral part of�          the�          household�          and�          of�          the�          property
          ��������          ownership as the family was matrilineal.
                                       
          ��������                    1.4          ��          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.3
                                       
          ��������                    1.4.1                    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.4 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.
                                       
          ��������                    1.5          ��          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
          ��������          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 laws.
                                       
          ��������                    1.5.1                    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�          comprehensive��          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.
          ��������          Many�          changes�          were�          brought�          about giving women greater
          ��������          rights, yet in section 6 the Mitakshara Coparcenary�          was
          ��������          retained.
                                       
          ��������                    1.6          ��          The�          Law�          Commission�          is�          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.�          The Commission's main aim
          ��������          is to end gender discrimination�          which�          is�          apparent�          in
          ��������          section��          6��          of��          the�          Hindu�          Succession�          Act,1956,�          by
          ��������          suggesting��          appropriate��          amendments��          to��          the���          Act.
          ��������          Accordingly, in the next two chapters of this report the
          ��������          Commission�          has�          made�          a broad study of section 6 of the
          ���                    �����Hindu Succession Act, 1956,�          and�          the�          Hindu�          Succession
          ��������          State(Amendment)�          Acts�          of�          Andhra Pradesh (1986), Tamil
          ��������          Nadu(1989), Maharashtra(1994)�          and�          Karnataka(1994)�          and
          ��������          the�          Kerala�          Joint�          Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975.
          ��������          The Acts are annexed collectively as Annexure IV.
                                       
          ���������                                Foot notes                              
                                       
                                       
                                       
          ��������          1.���                    Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law (1998 17th ed by
          �����������������          S.A.�          Desai), p.�          168.
                                       
          ��������          2.�����������          Ibid.
                                       
          ��������          3.���                    Mayne's,�          Treatise�          on Hindu Law & Usage, (1996
          �����������������          14th Edition,�          ed.���          by��          Alladi��          Kuppuswami)
          �����������������          p.1065.
                                       
          ��������          4.���                    M.�          Indira Devi, "Woman's�          Assertion�          of�          Legal
          �����������������          Rights to Ownership of property" in Women & Law
          �����������������          Contemporary Problems, (1994 ed.�          by L.�          Sarkar
          �����������������          & B.���          Sivaramayya) at p.174; also see section
          �����������������          3(3) of Hindu Women's Right�          to�          Property�          Act,
          �����������������          1937.
                                       
          ����������������������������������������������������                    ��������        
          �����������������������������������������������������������                                                                            
          CHAPTER II                      �������������������������������������������                                                                    
                                                                                               
                      SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - A STUDY��������                                                          
                                                                                               
          ��������                    2.1          ����������          The���          Hindu���          Succession���          Act,���          1956
          ��������          (hereinafter referred as the HSA) dealing with intestate
          ��������          succession�          among�          Hindus�          came into force on 17th June,
          ��������          1956.�          This Act brought about�          changes�          in�          the�          law�          of
          ��������          succession�          and gave rights which were hitherto unknown,
          ��������          in relation to a woman's property.�          However, it 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,
          ��������          inter-alia,�          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 by religion in
          ��������          any of its forms or develpments including a�          Virashaiva,
          ��������          a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo Prarthana or Arya
          ��������          Samaj; or to any person who is Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by
          ��������          religion;�          to�          any�          other�          person�          who�          is not a Muslim,
          ��������          Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion as�          per�          section�          2.
          ��������          In�          the case of a testamentary disposition this Act does
          ��������          not apply and the interest of the deceased�          is�          governed
          ��������          by the Indian Succesion Act, 1925.
                                       
          ��������                    2.2          ��          Section 4 of the Act is of importance and gives
          ��������          overriding��          effect��          to��          the�          provisions�          of�          the�          Act
          ��������          abrogating�          thereby�          all�          the�          rules�          of�          the��          Law��          of
          ��������          succession�          hitherto�          applicable�          to�          Hindus�          whether by
          ��������          virtue of any text or rule of Hindu law or any custom or
          ��������          usage having the�          force�          of�          laws,�          in�          respect�          of�          all
          ��������          matters dealt�          with�          in�          the�          Act.�          The HSA reformed the
          ��������          Hindu personal law and gave�          a�          woman�          greater�          property
          ��������          rights,�          allowing�          her�          full ownership rights instead of
          ��������          limited�          rights�          in�          the�          property�          she�          inherits�          under
          ��������          Section 14 with a fresh stock of heirs under sections 15
          ��������          and 16�          of�          the�          Act.���          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.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3          DEVOLUTION OF INTEREST IN COPARCENARY PROPERTY
                                       
          ��������                    �������������          Section 6 of the HSA dealing with devolution of
          ��������          interest to coparcenary property states-
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �"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�          devlove
          �����������������          by testamentary or intestate succession, as the
          �����������������          case��          may�          be,�          under�          this�          Act�          and�          not�          by
          �����������������          survivorship.
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ���Explanation�          1.-�          For          �the�          purposes�          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 his 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.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.1                    Before�          the�          commencement of the HSA, codifying
          ��������          the rules of succession, the concept of a�          Hindu�          family
          ��������          under��          Mitakshara��          school�          of�          law�          was�          that�          it�          was
          ��������          ordinarily joint not only in�          estate�          but�          in�          religious
          ��������          matters as���          well.�������          Coparcenary���          property,��          in
          ��������          contradistinction with the absolute or separate property
          ��������of an individual�          coparcenar,�          devolved�          upon�          surviving
          ��������          coparceners�          in�          the�          family,�          according�          to the rule of
          ��������          devolution by survivorship.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.2          ��������          Section 6 dealing with the�          devolution�          of
          ��������          the interest of a male Hindu in coparcenary property and
          ��������          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 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.�          Further, under section�          30�          a�          coparcener
          ��������          may�          make�          a�          testamentary�          disposition of his undivided
          ���                    �����interest in the Joint family property.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.3                    The�          rule�          of survivorship comes into operation
          ��������          only:-�          (1)�          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 , (ii) when�          the�          deceased�          has
          ��������          not�          made�          a�          testamentary�          disposition of his undivided
          ��������          share in the coparcenary property.�          The Schedule to�          the
          ��������Act�          read�          with�          Section 8 provides the following twelve
          ��������          relations as Class I heirs son; daughter; widow; mother;
          ��������          son of a pre-deceased son; daughter�          of�          a�          pre-deceased
          ��������          son;��          son�          of�          pre-deceased�          daughter;�          daughter          �of�          a
          ��������          pre-deceased daughter, widow of a pre-deceased son;�          son
          ��������          of�          pre-deceased�          son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of
          ��������          pre-deceased�          son�          of�          a�          pre-deceased�          son;�          widow��          of
          ��������          pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son.
                                       
                      ��������2.3.4                    Section�          6�          contemplates��          the��          existence��          of
          ��������          coparcenary�          property�          and�          more than one coparcener for
          ��������          the�          application�          of��          the��          rule��          of��          devolution��          by
          ��������          survivorship.��          The�          head�          note�          of�          the�          section�          reads
          ��������          "Devolution of interest in coparcenary property".���          The
          ��������          language�          of�          the main provision to the effect that "his
          ��������          interest in the property shall devolve�          by�          survivorship
          ��������          upon��          the��          surviving��          members"��          indicates�          that�          the
          ��������          devolution by survivorship�          is�          with�          reference�          to�          the
          ��������          deceased�          coparcener's interest alone; this coupled with
          ��������          the notional partition contemplated in Explanation 1�          in
          ��������          this�          section�          for�          the ascertainment of the interest of
          ��������          the deceased�          coparcener�          in�          a�          Mitakshara�          coparcenary
          ��������          property�          indicates�          that�          there is no disruption of the
          ��������          entire coparcenary.���          It��          follows��          that��          the��          other
          ��������          coparceners,�          would�          continue�          to be joint in respect of
          ��������          the other�          coparcenary�          property�          till�          a�          partition�          is
          ��������          effected.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.5                    It�          has already been 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.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.6                    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.�          Explanation I to section
          ��������          6 was interpreted differently�          by�          the�          High�          Courts�          of
          ��������Bombay,�          Delhi,�          Orissa�          and Gujarat in the cases1 where
          ��������          the female relative happened to be a wife or the�          mother
          ��������          living at�          the�          time of the death of the coparcener.�          It
          ��������          is now not necessary�          to�          discuss�          this�          matter�          as�          the
          ��������          controversy has been finally set at rest by the decision
          ��������          of the�          Supreme�          Court�          in 1978 in Gurupad v.�          Heerabai2
          ��������          and reiterated later in 1994 in Shyama Devi�          v.���          Manju
          ��������          Shukla3�          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.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.7          The Supreme Court in Gurupad's case observed:
                                       
          ��������                    �������������          "In�          order�          to�          ascertain the share of heirs in
          ��������          the property of a deceased coparcener it is necessary in
          ��������          the very nature of things, and as the very�          first�          step,
          ��������          to��          ascertain��          the��          share�          of�          the�          deceased�          in�          the
          ��������          coparcenary property.�          For, by doing that alone one�          can
          ��������determine��          the��          extent��          of��          the��          claimant's�          share.
          ��������          Explanation I�          to�          Section�          6�          resorts�          to�          the�          simple,
          ��������          expedient,�          undoubtedly�          a fictional partition, 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 that property had
          ��������          taken place immediately before�          his�          death.���          What�          is,
          ��������          therefore required to be assumed is that a partition had
          ��������          in fact taken place between the deceased and coparceners
          ��������          immediately before his death.�          That assumption once made
          ��������          is irrevocable.���          In other words, the assumption having
          ��������been made once for the purpose of ascertaining the share
          ��������          of the deceased in the coparcenary property�          one�          cannot
          ��������          go�          back�          on�          that assumption and ascertain the share of
          ��������          the heirs without�          reference�          to�          it........���          All�          the
          ��������          consequences�          which�          flow from real partition have to be
          ��������          logically worked out, which means that the share of�          the
          ��������          heirs�          must�          be�          ascertained�          on the basis that they had
          ��������          separated from one another and had received a�          share�          in
          ��������          the�          partition which had taken place during the lifetime
          ��������          of the deceased.�          The allotment of this share is�          not�          a
          ��������          processual�          step�          devised�          merely�          for�          the�          purpose�          of
          ��������          working out some other conclusion.�          It has to be treated
          ��������          and accepted�          as�          a�          concrete�          reality,�          something�          that
          ��������          cannot�          be�          recalled�          just�          as�          a�          share�          allotted�          to a
          ��������          coparcener in an actual partition�          cannot�          generally�          be
          ��������          recalled.��          The inevitable corollary of this position is
          ��������          that the heir will get his or her share in the�          interest
          ��������          which�          the�          deceased�          had in the coparcenary property at
          ��������          the time of his death, in addition to the share which he
          ��������          or she received or must be deemed to�          have�          received�          in
          ��������          the notional partition."4
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.8                    Again in State of Maharashtra V.�          Narayan�          Rao5
          ��������          the�          Supreme�          Court carefully considered the decision in
          ��������          Gurupad's case and pointed out that "Gurupad's case�          has
          ��������          to�          be�          treated�          as an authority (only) for the position
          ��������          that when a female member who inherits�          an�          interest�          in
          ��������          joint family property under section 6 of the Act files a
          ��������          suit�          for partition expressing her willingness to go out
          ��������          of the family she would be entitled to both the interest
          ��������          she has inherited and the share which�          would�          have�          been
          ��������          notionally�          allotted�          to her, as stated in Explanation I
          ������                    ��to section 6 of the Act.�          But it cannot be an�          authority
          ��������          for�          the�          proposition�          that she ceases to be a member of
          ��������          the family on the death of a male member of�          the�          family
          ��������          whose interest in the family property devolves on her
          �                    �������without�          the�          volition�          to�          separate�          herself�          from�          the
          ��������          family.�          A legal fiction should no doubt�          ordinarily�          be
          ��������          carried to its logical end to carry out the purposes for
          ��������          which�          it�          is�          enacted�          but�          it cannot be carried beyond
          ��������          that.�          It is no doubt true that the right�          of�          a�          female
          ��������          heir�          to�          the�          interest�          inherited�          by her in the family
          ��������          property gets fixed on the date of the death of�          a�          male
          ��������          member�          under�          section�          6�          of�          the Act but she cannot be
          ��������          treated as having ceased to be a member�          of�          the�          family
          ��������          without�          her�          volition�          as�          otherwise�          it�          will�          lead to
          ��������          strange�          results�          which�          could�          not�          have�          been�          in�          the
          ��������          contemplation��          of��          Parliament�          when�          it�          enacted�          that
          ��������          provision and which might also not be in the interest of
          ��������          such females."
                                       
          ��������                    2.4          Inequalities and Anomalies Discriminating Women
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ���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.
                                       
                      ��������            2.4.1                    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.
                                       
                      ���                        �����2.5          ����������          Again,�          the�          patrilineal�          assumptions of a
          ��������          dominant male ideology is clearly reflected in the�          laws
          ��������          governing a Hindu female who dies intestate.�          The law in
          ��������          her�          case�          in�          markedly�          different�          from those governing
          ����                    ����Hindu males.�          The property is to devolve�          first�          to�          her
          ��������          children and husband:�          secondly, to her husband's heirs;
          ��������          thirdly�          to�          her�          father's�          heirs,�          and�          lastly,�          to her
          ��������          mother's heirs.6 The provision of section 15(2)�          of�          HSA
          ��������          is�          indicative�          again�          of�          a tilt towards the male as it
          ��������          provides that any property she inherited from her father
          ��������          or�          mother�          should�          devolve,�          in�          the�          absence�          of��          any
          ��������          children,�          to�          her�          father's�          heirs�          and�          similarly, any
          ��������          property��          she��          inherited��          from��          her���          husband���          or
          ��������          father-in-law, to her husband's heirs.�          These provisions
          ��������          depict�          that�          property continues to be inherited through
          ��������          the male line from which it�          came�          either�          back�          to�          her
          ��������          father's family or back to her husband's family.
                                       
          ��������                    2.6          ��          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��          the
          ��������          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.�          Sita�          Ram�          S.���          Jajoo�          from�          Madhya�          Bharat,
          ��������          identified�          the�          reason�          for�          the resistance accurately,
          ��������          when he stated:�          "Here we�          feel�          the�          pinch�          because�          it
          ��������          touches our�          pockets.�          We male members of this house are
          ��������          in a huge majority.�          I do not wish that the�          tyranny�          of
          ��������          the�          majority may be imposed on the minority, the female
          ��������          members of this house."7 However,�          the�          tyranny�          of�          the
          ��������          majority�          prevailed�          when the Bill was finally passed in
          ��������          1956.�          The major changes brought were:-
          ��������                    �����          (1) Retention of the�          Mitakshara�          coparcenary�          with
          �����������������          only males as coparceners;
          ��������                    �����          (2) Coparcener's right to will away his interest in
          �����������������          the joint family property.�          (This provision was
          �����������������          unexpectedly�          introduced by an amendment by the
          �����������������          then Law Minister Mr.�          Pataskar�          in�          the�          final
          �����������������          stages�          of the clause-by-clause debate when the
          �����������������          bill was to be passed, in 1956.�          It was�          widely
          �����������������          perceived��          and��          pro-claimed,��          even��          in�          the
          �����������������          contemporary press, to�          be�          a�          capitulation�          by
          �����������������          government.);
          ��������          �����          (3) Removal�          of�          exemption�          of�          Marumakkattayam and
          �����������������          Aliyasantana�          communities;�          that�          is,��          virtual
          �����������������          destruction�          of the only systems in which women
          �����������������          were the equivalent of full coparceners; and
          ��������                    �����          (4) Alteration�          of�          original��          provision��          that��          a
          �����������������          daughter�          would�          get a share equivalent to half
          �����������������          the share of a son in self-acquired property of
          �����������������          the father�          who�          died�          intestate.8�          The�          Select
          �����������������          Committee�          decided�          to�          make her share full and
          �����������������          equal to that of a son.
          ��������                    2.7          ��          When Dr.Ambedkar was questioned as to how�          this
          ��������          happened in the Select Committee he said:�          "It was not a
          ��������          compromise.��          My�          enemies�          combined with my enthusiastic
          ��������          supporters and my enemies thought that they�          might�          damn
          ��������          the Bill by making it appear worse than it was.9
                                       
          ��������                    2.8          ��          The retention�          of�          the�          Mitakshara�          coparcenary
          ��������          without�          including�          females in it meant that females can
          ��������          not 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.
                                       
          ��������                    2.9          ��          Another�          apparent          �inequity�          under�          the��          Hindu
          ��������          Succession�          Act�          as�          per�          Section�          23,�          is the provision
          ��������          denying a married daughter the right to residence in the
          ��������          parental home unless widowed, deserted or separated from
          ��������          her husband and further denying any daughter�          the�          right
          ��������          to�          demand�          her�          share�          in the house if occupied by male
          ��������          family members.�          This right is not denied to a son.�          The
          ��������          main object of the section is said to be the primacy�          of
          ��������          the�          rights�          of the family against that of an individual
          ��������          by imposing a restriction on partition.�          Why is it�          that
          ��������          this�          right�          of�          primacy of family is considered only in
          ��������          the case of a female member of the family?
                                       
          ��������                    2.10          �          The�          National�          report on the Status of Women in
          ��������          India recommended that this discrimination in asking for
          ��������          a partition be removed so that a daughter enjoys a right
          ��������          similar to that of a son.10
                                       
          ��������                    2.11          �          However,�          the�          Supreme�          Court�          by�          its��          recent
          ��������          judgment in Narashimaha Murthy�          v.���          Sushilabai11�          held
          ��������          that�          a�          female�          heir's�          right to claim partition of the
          ��������          dwelling house of a Hindu dying intestate under�          section
          ��������          23�          of�          the�          HSA�          will�          be�          deferred or kept in abeyance
          ��������          during the lifetime of even a sole surviving�          male�          heir
          ��������          of�          the�          deceased until he chooses to separate his share
          ��������          or ceases to occupy it or lets it out.�          The idea of this
          ��������          section�          being�          to��          prevent��          the��          fragmentation��          and
          ��������          disintegration�          of the dwelling house at the instance of
          ��������          the female heirs to the detriment of the male�          heirs�          in
          ��������          occupation of�          the�          house.�          thus rendering the male heir
          ��������          homeless/shelterless.
                                       
          ��������                    2.12          �          A�          similar�          instance of inequity created by law
          ��������          was the establishment of the�          new�          right�          to�          will�          away
          ��������          property.��          The�          Act 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.���          None of the clauses of
          ��������          1925 Act, apply to Hindus except wills.
                                       
          ��������          2.13          �          A rule firmly established before HSA was that a
          ��������          Hindu cannot by will bequeath property, which�          he�          could
          ��������          not have�          alienated�          by gift inter- vivos.�          A coparcener
          ��������          under Dayabhaga law, however, could by gift�          dispose�          of
          ��������          the��          whole��          of��          his�          property�          whether�          ancestral�          or
          ��������          self-acquired, subject to the claims of�          those�          entitled
          ��������          to be�          maintained�          by�          him.�          However, a coparcener under
          ��������          Mitakshara�          law�          had�          no�          power�          to��          dispose          ��of��          his
          ��������          coparcenary�          interest by gift or bequest so as to defeat
          ��������          the right of the other members.�          The coparcenary�          system
          ��������          even�          restricted�          the�          rights�          of�          the Karta to alienate
          ��������          property, thereby safeguarding the rights of all members
          ��������          of the family including infants and�          children�          to�          being
          ��������          maintained from the joint family property.
                                       
          ��������                    2.14          �          Although�          many�          powers were vested in the karta
          ��������          or�          male�          head�          of�          the�          family,�          who�          was�          supposed�          to
          ��������          administer the property in the interests of all members,
          ��������          yet�          decisions regarding disposal of the family property
          ��������          were to be taken collectively.�          Each male had�          an�          equal
          ��������          share in the property, but the expenditure was not to be
          ��������          apportioned only�          to�          males�          but�          also�          to females.�          The
          ��������          right to will away property was traditionally unknown to
          ��������          Hindus.�          It was introduced into the statute by virtue of
          ��������          section 30 of the HSA.�          According to�          the�          said�          section
          ��������          any�          Hindu�          may dispose of by will or other testamentary
          ��������          disposition any property capable�          of�          disposition�          (this
          ��������          includes��          his��          undivided��          interest�          in�          a�          Mitakshara
          ��������          coparcenary�          property�          as�          per��          the��          Explanation)��          in
          ��������          accordance�          with the provisions of the Indian Succession
          ��������          Act, 1925.�          This is ironical as this testamentary�          right
          ��������          right of his daughter by succession.�          It can also defeat
          ��������          a widow's�          right.���          There�          is�          thus a diminution in the
          ��������          status of a wife/widow.
                                       
          ��������                    2.15          �          According to Muslim law a person is�          restrained
          ��������          from giving�          away all his property by will.�          He can only
          ��������          will away a maximum of one-third of his property and the
          ��������          rest has to be divided among�          the�          agnatic�          and�          Koranic
          ��������          heirs.��          A�          person is, of course, not required to make a
          ��������          will.
                                       
          ��������                    2.16          �          The�          proviso�          to section 6 of HSA also contains
          ��������          another gender bias.�          It has been provided therein�          that
          ��������          the��          interest��          of��          the�          deceased�          in�          the�          Mitakshara
          ��������          Coparcenary shall devolve by intestate succession if the
          ��������          deceased had left 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.
          ��������          In order to appreciate the gender bias it�          is�          necessary
          ��������          to�          see�          the devolution of interest under section 8 HSA.
          ��������          The property of a male Hindu�          dying�          intestate�          devolves
          ��������          according�          to�          section�          8�          of the HSA, firstly, upon the
          ��������          heirs being the relatives specified in class�          I�          of�          the
          ��������          Schedule.�          However, there are only four primary heirs in
          ��������the�          Schedule to class I, namely, mother, widow, son and
          ��������          daughter.�          The remaining eight represent one or�          another
          ��������          person�          who�          would have been a primary heir if he or she
          ��������          had not died before the propositus.��          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.�          Accordingly, the son's son's son
          ��������          and 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.���          A further infirmity is that widows of a
          ��������          pre-deceased son and grandson are class I heirs, but the
          ��������          husbands of a deceased daughter�          or�          grand-daughter�          are
          ��������          not heirs.12
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
          ���������                                FOOT NOTES                              
                                       
          ��������          1.�����������          See Shiramabai v Kolgonda, 1964 Bom.263;
          ��������                    �������������          Kanahaya Lal v Jamna, 1973 Delhi 160;
          ��������                    �����                    ��������Rangubai Lalji v Lakshman�          Lal�          Ji,�          1966�          Bom.
          ���������������                    �������169;
          ��������                    �������������          See also Ananda v Haribandhu, 1967 orissa 90;������                  
          ��������                    �����                    ��������Vidyaben v Jadgish Chandra, 1974 Guj 23;
          ��������                    �������������          Susheelabai v Narayanarao 1975, Bom.257
                                       
          ��������          2.�����������          (1978) 3 SSC, p.383:�          AIR 1978 SC, 1239
                                       
          ��������          3.�����������          (1994) 6 SCC, Pp.�          342-343
                                       
          ��������          4.�����������          Supra n.2 at Pp.�          389-390 (para 13):�          at 1243
                                       
          ��������          5.�����������          AIR 1985 SC 716, at p.721 (para 9)
                                       
          ��������          6.���                    �������          Ratna�          Kapoor�          and�          Brenda�          Cossman,��          Feminist
          �����������������������          Engagements��          with�          law�          in�          India,�          Subversive
          �����������������������          sites, 1996, p.134
                                       
          ��������          7.���                    �������          The����          Constituent���          Assembly���          of���          India,
          ����������������������          (Legislative) Debates Vol.VI 1949 Part II,
                                       
                                       
          ��������          8.�����������          Madhu�          Kiswar,�          "Codified�          Hindu�          Law�          Myth and
          ����������������������          Reality" Eco & Pol.�          Weekly, No.33 Aug 1994.
                                       
          ��������          9.���                    ������          The Constituent Assembly of India (Legislative)
          ����������������������          Debates Vol.VI 1949 Part II, p.841
                                       
          ��������          10.����������          Status of Women in India,�          A�          Synopsis�          of�          the
          ����������������������          Report�          of�          the�          National�          Committee�          (1971-74)
          ����������������������          p.53-54
                                       
          ��������          11.��                    �������          AIR 1996 SC, 1826.
                                       
          ��������          12.����������          Dr.��          Tahir�          Mahmood�          Hindu Law, (1986; 2nd ed)
          ��������������                    ��������p.57.
                                       
                                       
          �����������������������������������������������������������                  
          ���������������������������������������������������������������                                                                            
                      CHAPTER - III                                                                            
                                                                                               
                      COPARCENARY:�              RELEVANCE AND ALTERNATIVES                  
                                       
                      ��������            3.1          ��          It is apparent from the study of�          the�          previous
          ��������          chapter�          that�          discrimination�          against�          a�          woman is writ
          ��������          large in relation to property rights.���          Social�          justice
          ��������          demands�          that�          a woman should be treated equally both in
          ��������          the economic and the social sphere.��          The�          exclusion�          of
          ��������          daughters�          from�          participating�          in�          coparcenary property
          ��������          ownership merely by�          reason�          of�          their�          sex�          is�          unjust.
          �����                    ���Improving�          their economic condition and social status by
          ��������          giving equal rights by birth is a long felt social need.
          ��������          Undoubtedly a radical reform of the�          Mitakshara�          law�          of
          ��������          coparcenary�          is�          needed to provide equal distribution of
          ��������          property not�          only�          with�          respect�          to�          the�          separate�          or
          ��������          self-acquired�          property of the deceased male but also in
          ��������          respect of his undivided�          interest�          in�          the�          coparcenary
          ��������          property.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2          The New Coparcenary under State Acts :�          (ANDHRA
          �����������������          MODEL)
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ��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.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.1                    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�          Karnataka1 have taken cognisance 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 famly.�          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.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.2                    The approach of the Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
          ��������          Maharashtra��          and��          Karnataka��          state�          legislatures�          is,
          ��������          strikingly different�          from�          that�          of�          Kerala�          and�          these
          ��������          states��          instead��          of�          abolishing�          the�          right�          by�          birth
          ��������          strengthened�          it,�          while�          broadly�          removing�          the�          gender
          ��������          discrimination inherent�          in Mitakshara Coparcenary.�          The
          ��������          broad features of the�          legislations�          are�          more�          or�          less
          ��������          couched in the same language in each of these Acts.�          The
          ��������          amending��          Acts��          of�          Andhra�          Pradesh,�          Tamil�          Nadu�          and
          ��������          Maharashtra add three sections namely, 29A, 29B and�          29C
          ��������          but�          Karnataka numbers them as Sections 6A, 6B and 6C of
          ��������          the Act.
                                                                 
                      ��������            3.2.3                    These state enactments provide equal rights�          to
          ��������          a�          daughter�          in�          the�          coparcenary property and contain a
          ��������          nonobstante clause.�          In these four states;
          ��������                    �����          (a) the daughter of a coparcener in a�          Joint�          Hindu
          �����������������          Family governed by Mitakshara law, shall become
          �����������������          a�          coparcener�          by birth in her own right in the
          �������                    ����������same manner as the son and have similar�          rights
          �����������������          in�          the�          coparcenary property and be subject to
          �����������������          similar liabilities and�          disabilities;
                                       
          ��������                    �����          (b) On partition of a joint�          Hindu�          family�          of�          the
          �����������                    ������coparcenary�          property,�          she�          will be allotted a
          �����������������          share equal to that of a son.�          The share of the
          �����������������          predeceased son or a�          predeceased�          daughter�          on
          �����������������          such��          partition��          would�          be�          allotted�          to�          the
          ���                    ��������������surviving children of such predeceased�          son�          or
          �����������������          predeceased�          daughter,�          if alive at the time of
          �����������������          the partition.
          ��������                    �����          (c) This�          property�          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�          or�          other�          testamentary
          �����������������          disposition.
          ��������                    �����          (d) The�          state enactments are prospective in nature
          �����������������          and do not apply to a daughter who�          is�          married
          �����������������          prior�          to,�          or�          to�          a�          partition which has been
          �����������������          effected before the commencement of the Act.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.4                    However,��          these���          four���          Hindu���          Succession
          ��������          (Amendment) Acts have been criticised as they have given
          ��������          rise�          to�          various�          difficulties�          in�          their�          working�          and
          ��������          application.���          These��          four��          amending���          Acts,���          have
          ��������          considerably altered the concept of the Mitakshara Joint
          ��������          family�          and�          coparcenary�          by elevating a daughter to the
          ��������          position of a coparcener.�          Once a daughter becomes a
          ��������          coparcener she naturally continues to be a member of the
          ��������          natal joint family and after marriage she will also be a
          ��������          member of her marital Joint family.2
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.5                    In this connection, it is�          relevant�          to�          notice
          ��������          the observations of Mr.Pataskar made while participating
          ��������          in�          the�          parliamentary�          debate�          at�          the�          time�          the Hindu
          ��������          Succession Bill, 1955 was moved.�          He said:
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �"To retain the Mitakshara Joint Family�          and�          at
          �����������������          the�          same�          time�          put�          a�          daughter�          on�          the same
          �����������������          footing as a son with respect to the�          right�          by
          ��������                    ���������birth,�          right�          of survivorship and the right to
          �����������������          claim partition at any time, will be to provide
          �����������������          for a joint�          family�          unknown�          to�          the�          law�          and
          �����������������          unworkable in practice"3
                                                                 
                      ��������            3.2.6                    It was noticed that in the State of Tamil Nadu,
          ��������          many properties were partitioned between the coparceners
          ��������          before�          the Tamil Nadu (Hindu Succession Amendment) Act,
          ��������          1989�          came�          into�          force�          with�          a�          view�          to�          defeat��          the
          ��������          daughter's right�          to become a coparcener.�          These were by
          ��������          and large "fraudulent partitions" which�          were�          pre-dated
          ��������          so�          that�          no�          coparcenary�          property was available to the
          ��������          daughter.�          This malpractice has to be checked thoroughly
          ��������          otherwise the very objective of the�          Act,�          which�          is�          to
          ��������          remove��          discrimination��          inherent��          in�          the�          Mitakshara
          ��������          coparcenary��          against��          daughters,��          stands���          defeated.
          ��������          Therefore,�          though�          the�          Tamil�          Nadu�          Act�          received�          the
          �                    �������President's assent on 15.1.1990 and was published in the
          ��������          official gazette only on�          18.1.1990,�          the�          Act�          provides
          ��������          that�          partitions�          effected�          contrary�          to�          the�          Act after
          ��������          25.3.89 will be deemed to be void.�          The Law Commission's
          ��������          questionnaire elicited public opinion in this regard and
          ��������          found that the majority�          were�          of�          the�          view�          that�          such
          ��������          transactions�          made�          just�          before�          the�          enactment�          of the
          ��������          proposed legislation should be declared invalid.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.7                    Another�          infirmity of these state enactments is
          ��������          that they exclude�          the�          right�          of�          a�          daughter�          who�          was
          ��������          married�          prior�          to the commencement of the Act, from the
          ��������          coparcenary property, though, the right is available�          to
          ��������          a daughter who is married after the coming into force of
          ��������          the said amendment acts.�          As a result a married daughter
          ��������          continues�          to have her interest in the joint property of
          ��                    ������her paternal family, if her�          marriage�          has�          taken�          place
          ��������          subsequent�          to�          the enactment while the daughter who got
          ��������          married before the enforcement of the law gets no�          right
          ��������          at�          all�          in�          the�          joint property of her parental family.
          ��������          Such a discrimination appears to be unfair and�          illegal.
          ��������          A�          recent�          Supreme Court decisions lends support to this
          ��������          view.�          In Savita Samvedi v.�          Union of India5 it was held
          ��������          that the distinction between a married and an�          unmarried
          ��������          daughter may be unconstitutional.�          The observations made
          ��������          by Mr.Justice Punchhi are relevant; " The eligibility of
          ��������          a�          married�          daughter�          must�          be�          placed�          on�          par�          with an
          ��������          unmarried daughter (for she must have been once in�          that
          ��������          state), so as to claim the benefit....."6
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.8                    The�          majority�          of�          the�          replies�          to��          the��          Law
          ��������          Commission's�          questionnaire�          are�          also�          of the view that
          ��������          equal�          rights�          should�          be�          conferred�          on��          married��          and
          ��������          unmarried daughters.��          This is also the view with regard
          ��������          to the dwelling house.7
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.9                    It is further felt that once a daughter is made
          ��������          a coparcener on the same footing as a son then her right
          ��������          as�          a          �coparcener�          should be real in spirit and content.
          ��������          In that event section 23 of the HSA should�          be�          deleted.
          ��������          Section�          23�          provides�          that�          on�          the�          death�          of�          a Hindu
          ��������          intestate, in case of a dwelling house�          wholly�          occupied
          ������                    ��by�          members�          of�          the�          joint family, a female heir is not
          ��������          entitled to�          demand�          partition�          unless�          the�          male�          heirs
          ��������          choose�          to�          do�          so;�          it�          further�          curtails�          the right of
          ��������          residence of a daughter unless she is unmarried�          or�          has
          ��������          been deserted by or has separated from her husband or is
          ��������          a widow.���          Section�          23�          of�          HSA�          needs�          to�          be�          deleted
          ��������          altogether and there is�          great�          support�          for�          this�          from
          ��������          various�          sections�          of�          society�          while�          replying          �to�          the
          ��������          questionnaire.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.10                              There�          is also a need for special protection of
          ��������          a widow's right to reside in the dwelling�          house.���          The
          ��������          family�          dwelling�          house�          should not be alienated without
          ��������          the�          widow's�          consent�          or�          without�          providing��          her��          an
          ��������          alternative�          accomodation�          after�          she�          has agreed to the
          ��������          sale of the dwelling house.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.11                              The HSA of 1956 give daughters as well�          as�          the
          ��������          widow�          of�          a deceased coparcener a share in the interest
          ��������          of the deceased male�          coparcenar.���          However,�          the�          four
          ��������          Hindu Succession�          (State�          Amendment)�          Acts�          i.e.�          Andhra
          ��������          Pradesh, Tamil�          Nadu,�          Karnataka�          and�          Maharashtra�          have
          ��������          conferred��          equal��          coparcenary��          rights��          on�          sons�          and
          ��������          dauthters;�          thus�          preserving�          the�          right�          by�          birth�          and
          ��������          extending��          it�          to�          daughters�          also�          in�          the�          Mitakshara
          ��������          Coparcenary.�          This has the indirect effect�          of�          reducing
          ��������          the widow's�          successional share.�          This is because if the
          ��������          number of coparcenars increase then the interest of�          the
          ��������          husband will decrease.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.12                              The HSA of 1956 dithered in not abolishing�          the
          ��������          very�          concept�          of�          coparcenary which the Act should have
          ��������          done.�          But the Hindu Succession (State�          Amendment)�          Acts
          ��������          have�          confered�          upon�          the�          daughter of a coparcener, the
          ��������          right to become a coparcener like a son which may affect
          ��������          the brother-sister relationship.���          It�          further�          appears
          ��������          that�          even�          where�          daughters�          have been made coparceners
          ��������          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.
                                       
          ��������                    3.3          ��          Kerala Model
                                       
          ��������                    �������������          The State of Kerala has abolished�          the�          concept
          ��������          of coparcenary following the recommendation of the Hindu
          ��������          Law Committee - B.N.�          Rau Committee (which was entrusted
          ��������          with the task of framing a Hindu Code Bill).�          The Kerala
          ��������          model�          furthers�          the�          unification�          of Hindu law and P.V.
          ��������          Kane suporting the recommendation of the�          Rau�          Committee
          ��������          stated:
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �"And�          the�          unification of Hindu Law will be
          �����������������          helped by the abolition of the right�          by�          birth
          �����������������          which�          is�          the cornerstone of Mitakshara school
          �����������������          and�          which�          the�          draft�          Hindu�          code�          seeks��          to
          �����������������          abolish."8
                                       
                      ��������            3.3.1                    The Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act,
          ��������          1975 (hereinafter known as the Kerala�          Act)�          in�          section
          ��������          4(i)�          of�          the�          Act�          lays�          down that all the members of a
          ��������          Mitakshara Coparcenary will hold the property as tenants
          ��������          in common on the day the Act comes into force�          as�          if�          a
          ��������          partition�          had�          taken�          place and each holding his or her
          ��������          share separately.�          The notable feature of the Kerala law
          ��������          is that it�          has�          abolished�          the�          traditional�          Mitakshara
          ��������          coparcenary and�          the right by birth.�          But in Kerala, the
          ��������          Marumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri systems�          were
          ��������          also�          present,�          some of which were matrilineal and these
          ��������          joint families were also abolished.��          The�          Kerala�          Model
          ��������          probably��          results�          in�          maintenance�          of�          greater�          family
          ��������          harmony and appears to be a fair decision as�          in�          Kerala
          ��������both matrilineal and patrilineal joint families existed.
          ��������          If�          the�          Joint�          family�          was abolished today in the other
          ��������          states then a deemed�          partition�          would�          take�          place�          and
          ��������          women�          not�          being�          coparceners�          would�          get nothing more.
          ��������          Whereas if they are made coparceners, then�          they�          become
          ��������          equal sharers.
                                       
          ��������                    3.3.2                    However, one common drawback of both the Kerala
          ��������          model�          and�          the Andhra model is that it fails to protect
          ��������          the share of the daughter, mother or�          widow�          from�          being
          ��������          defeated�          by making a testamentary disposition in favour
          ��������          of another, or by alienation.�          This criticism of�          course
          ��������          against�          testamentary�          disposition�          can�          be also used to
          ��������disinherit a son.�          The question�          whether�          a�          restriction
          ��������          should��          be��          placed��          on�          the�          making�          of�          testamentary
          ��������          disposition as in some of the personal laws�          is�          another
          ��������          matter in issue.
                                       
          ��������                    3.4          ��          In�          order�          to�          provide�          women�          with some better
          ��������          property rights, four states have dealt with the�          matter
          ��������          by virtue of the Hindu Succession (State Amendment) Acts
          ��������          and�          Kerala�          has�          dealt�          with it by abolishing the Hindu
          ��������          Joint Family altogether.���          This�          has�          resulted�          in�          two
          ��������          different models�          being�          in�          existence�          i.e.�          the Andhra
          ��������          model and the Kerala model.
                                       
                      ��������            3.5          ��          Recent reports in some newspapers�          reveal�          that
          ��������          the�          Centre�          has�          asked�          all�          the�          states�          to�          carry out
          ��������          suitable amendments in the HSA to confer property rights
          ��������          on women in a joint family.�          "The�          Department�          of�          Women
          ��������          and�          Child�          Development has requested various States and
          ��������          Union�          Territories�          to�          draw�          up�          necessary�          legislature
          ��������          proposal�          to�          amend�          section�          6 of the HSA, 1956 to give
          ��������          daughters their due�          share�          of�          coparcenary�          right"9�          as
          ��������          already�          done�          by States like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
          ��������          Maharashtra and�          Tamil�          Nadu.���          It�          is�          also�          indicated
          ��������          therein�          that�          the�          Kerala�          Government has taken a stand
          ��������          that�          in�          view�          of�          the�          Kerala�          Joint��          family��          system
          ��������          (Abolition)�          Act,�          1975,�          Section 6 of the HSA "does not
          ��������          operate" in that State.
                                       
          ��������                    3.6          ��          The�          subject�          matter�          of the laws of succession
          ��������          fall in entry 5 of the Concurrent List�          of�          the�          Seventh
          ��������          Schedule to�          the Constitution.�          Therefore, Parliament as
          ��������          well as the State Legislatures are�          competent�          to          �enact
          ��������          laws in�          this�          area.��          In case another State brings some
          ��������          third model of legislation in this�          field,�          there�          is�          a
          ��������          likelihood�          of�          having�          still more diversity in the law.
          ��������          This would result in the directive principles�          of�          state
          ��������          policy�          not�          being adhered to which require the State to
          ��������          endeavour to secure a uniform civil code throughout�          the
          ��������          territory of�          India.���          If�          we�          cannot have that for the
          ��������          present we�          should�          at�          least�          have�          uniformity�          amongst
          ��������          Hindus.��          Accordingly,�          there�          is need to have a central
          ��������          law enacted by�          Parliament�          under�          article�          246�          of�          the
          ��������          Constitution.�          In such a situation the law made by these
          ��������          five�          states�          would�          stand�          repealed�          to�          the�          extent of
          ��������          repugnancy, unless expressly repealed.
                                       
                                       
                                       
          ���������                                FOOT NOTES                              
                                                                                               
          ��������          1.���                    The Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act,
          �����������������          1975
          ��������                    �����                    �The Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment)
          ��������                    ���������Act.�          1986
          ��������                    �����                    �The Hindu�          Succession�          (Tamil�          Nadu�          Amendment)
          �����������������          Act.�          1989
          ��������                    �����                    �The�          Hindu�          Succession�          (Maharashtra Amendment)
          �����������������          Act.�          1994
          ��������                    �����                    �The Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act.
          �����������������1994
          ��������                    �����                    �For text of these Acts, See Annexure - IV
          ��������          2.���                    B.Sivaramayya,���          "Coparcenary���          Rights����          to
          �����������������          Daughters;�          Constitutional and interpretational
          �����������������          Issues," (1997) 3 SCC (J), P.25
          ���                    �����3.���                    Lok Sabha Debates p.8014(1955)
          ��������          4.���                    Infra, Chapter IV, Para 4.10
          ��������          5.���                    JT (1996) 1 P.680
          ��������          6.���                    Id, at PP.�          683-684 Para 7
          ��������          7.���                    Infra, Chapter IV, Para 4.7
          ��������          8.���                    M.P.V.�          Kane, History of Dharamsastra, (Ancient
          �����������������and Medieval Religious and�          Civil�          Law)�          (1946)
          �����������������          Vol.III, p.823
          ��������          9.���                    PTI,�          "Centre�          asks�          States�          to��          amend��          Hindu
          �����������������          Succession�          Act",�          The�          Observer�          7.2.2000; see
          �����������������          also The Tribune, 22.3.2000.        
                                       
                                       
                                       
          �����������������������������������������������������������                  
          �����������������������������������������������������������                                                                            
                      CHAPTER - IV                                                                            
          ������������������������������������������������������������                  
          ���������          4.1          ��          Questionnaire and its responses
                                       
          ��������                    �������������          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.1�          Sixty-Seven respondents have replied to the
          �                    �������questionnaire.�          30 respondents are from�          the�          profession
          ��������          of�          law�          and�          the�          rest comprise sociologists, NGOs etc.
          ��������          The responses received relating to various issues of the
          ��������          questionnaire�          have�          been�          analysed�          and�          tabulated��          in
          ��������          Annexure II.���          A�          brief�          synopsis�          of�          the more salient
          ��������          issues is set out.
                                       
          ��������                    4.2          Mitakshara�          Joint�          Family to be retained or not
          �����������������          and reasons for doing so?
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          Out�          of�          the�          67 respondents, the majority
          �����������������          opposed���          retention���          of���          the���          Mitakshara
          �����������������          Coparcenary.��          The�          two�          main reasons indicated
          �����������������          for�          this�          opposition�          were,�          the��          coparcenary
          �����������������          system�          discriminates�          against�          women�          and�          the
          �����������������          legislative changes�          have�          already�          eroded�          the
          �����������������          utility of the coparcenary system.�          The few who
          �����������������          favoured its retention were of the view that it
          �����������������          protects�          the financially weaker members of the
          �����������������          family, gives better rights to males and�          helps
          �����������������          in�          agriculture�          and business activities of the
          �����������������          family.
                                       
          ��������                    4.3          Steps��          to��          be��          taken��          to��          remove���          gender
          �����������������          discrimination
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          However, the majority of�          the�          respondents
          �����������������          suggested��          that,��          even��          if,�          the�          Mitakshara
          �����������������          Coparcenary is retained,�          though�          it�          would�          be
          �����������������          better�          if�          it          �were�          done away with the gender
          �����������������          bias in HSA should be removed.���          Consequently,
          �����������������          they wanted a daughter to be given the right by
          �����������������          birth to become a coparcener like the son.
                                       
          ��������                    4.4          Daughter becoming a Karta in the�          Joint�          Family
          �����������������          in case Mitakshara Joint Family is retained.
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          About�          half�          the�          respondents�          wanted�          the
          �����������������          daughter�          to become a Karta in the Joint Family
          �����������������          if the Mitakshara Joint Family is retained.
          ��������                    4.5          From�          what�          period should the Act (when passed)
          �����������������          be applicable?
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          Opinion on this issue was clearly�          divided
          �����������������          and��          only��          11��          respondents�          favoured�          giving
          ����������������                    �retrospective effect, from 10 to 15 years prior
          �����������������          to�          the�          passing�          of�          the�          Act;�          14�          were��          for
          �����������������          providing�          protection to the purchasers who had
          �����������������          bought�          the�          property��          in��          good��          faith;��          12
          ��������                    ���������respondents were in favour of not affecting the
          �����������������          vested�          rights�          and�          some�          respondents�          did not
          �����������������          answer the querry.
          ��������          .
          ��������                    4.6          Should�          the right of coparcenary be confered on
          �����������������          the mother by the proposed legislation?
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          The�          majoirty�          of the respondents favoured
          �����������������          conferring coparcenary right on the mother.
                                       
                      ��������            4.7          Should�          attempts��          to��          defeat��          the��          proposed
          �����������������          legislation immediately before its enactment by
          �����������������          partition or sales be declared invalid?
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          The majority of the�          respondents�          answered
          �����������������          the�          question in the affirmative declaring that
          �����������������          such transanctions ought to be totally invalid.
                                       
          ��������                    4.8          Right to residence or partition of the Dwelling
          �����������������          House by a daughter
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          The�          majority�          preferred�          that�          the law be
          �����������������          amended to provide that partition can be sought
          �����������������          by the female heirs also even if there was only
          �����������������          one ancestral�          home.���          On�          the�          issue�          whether
          �����������������          married daughters be given a right of residence
          �����������������          in�          the�          dwelling�          house, the majority favoured
          ������������                    �����equal�          treatement�          for�          married�          and�          unmarried
          �����������������          daughters�          and�          some also suggested deletion of
          �����������������          section 23 of HSA altogether.
                                       
          ��������                    4.9          Widows right to residence or forbidding sale of
          �����������������          the dwelling house.
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          A large majority of the respondents,�          that
          �����������������          is,�          61�          have expressed themselves in favour of
          �����������������          giving a special protection to a widow's�          right
          �����������������          to reside��          in��          the�          dwelling�          house.          ���Other
          �����������������          alternative suggestions made�          were�          to�          declare
          �����������������          that��          the�          family�          dwelling�          house�          cannot�          be
          �����������������          alienated�          without�          the�          widow's��          consent��          or
          �����������������          without�          providing an alternative accommodation
          �����������������          to her after she had agreed to the sale of�          the
          �����������������          dwelling house, or to confer `Homestead' rights
          �����������������          on the wife/widow like in U.S.A., Canada.
                                       
          ��������                    4.10          Inheritance�          Certificate��          on��          death��          of��          an
          �����������������          individual�          by all heirs indicating their share
          �����������������          in the property
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          The��          majority��          wanted�          that�          Inheritance
          �����������������          Certificates should be issued but watnted�          that
          �����������������          to be�          issued�          at�          the�          lowest�          rung,�          i.e.�          by
          �����������������          Munsif's Courts.���          They�          also��          favoured��          the
          �����������������          establishment��          of��          `Itinerary��          Courts'��          for
          �����������������          achieving the said purpose.
                                       
          ��������                    4.11          Model�          to�          follow�          for�          bringing�          the�          proposed
          �����������������          legislation
                                       
          ��������                    �������������          (a)�����������          Kerala Model, 1976
          ��������                    �������������          (b)�����������          Andhra Model, 1986
          ��������                    �������������          (c)�����������          To amend and recast Section 6 of�����������������������������������������������������������������          HAS
          ��������                    �������������          (d)����                    To�          omit�          Section 6 altogether and add
          �������������������������������          an explanation to Section 8.
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          The Commission solicited�          opinion�          on�          the
          �����������������          important�          question as to which model should be
          �����������������          followed�          if�          it�          were�          to�          recommend��          a��          new
          �����������������          legislation��          for�          the�          purpose�          of�          conferring
          �����������������          rights on daughters.�          Out of 67 respondents�          24
          �����������������          favoured��          the�          Andhra�          Pradesh�          model�          and�          22
          ���������                    ��������favoured the�          Kerala�          Model.���          Some,�          however,
          �����������������          favoured the recasting of Section 6 of HSA, and
          �����������������          few�          others suggested that section 6 be omitted
          �����������������          altogether.
                                       
                      ��������            4.12          Placing���          restriction          ���on��          the��          right��          of
          �����������������          testamentary disposition
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          The majority favoured imposing restriction
          �����������������          on the right of testamentary disposition.���          22
          �����������������          respondents�          suggested�          to limit it to one half
          �����������������          of the share�          in�          the�          property�          and�          an�          equal
          �����������������          number�          suggested�          to�          limit it to 1/3rd of the
          �����������������          same.
                                       
                                       
          �����������������������������������������������������������                  
                                       
                      Chapter V                              
                                    �������������������������                            �������������������������                                                                                                                              �����������������������������������                                            
                      CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                  
          ��������                    ���������������������                  
          ���������          5.1          Conclusions
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          To suggest suitable reforms to any law, it
          �����������������          is necessary to know the existing provisions of
          �����������������          the law and the mischief sought to be remedied.
          �����������������          In the previous chapters provisions of�          section
          �����������������          6          �of�          HSA�          and the various inequities emerging
          �����������������          therefrom have been discussed.�          In this chapter
          �����������������          the conclusions of our study are enumerated and
          �����������������          thereafter we have made some suggestions.
                                       
          ��������                    5.2          �          Under the Mitakshara system, joint�          family
          �����������������          property�          devolves�          by�          survivorship within the
          �����������������          coparcenary.�          Mitakshara�          Law�          also�          recognises
          �����������������          inheritance�          by succession but only to property
          �����������������          separately�          owned�          by�          an�          individual�          male�          or
          �����������������          female.�          (Para 1.3.3)
                                       
          ��������                    5.3          �          Dayabhaga�          school neither accords right by
          �����������������          birth nor by survivorship though a Joint family
          �����������������          and its coparcenary is�          recognised.���          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 self-acquired.���          Sons
          �����������������          and�          daughters�          become�          coparceners only on the
          �����������������          death of the father and get equal rights in the
          �����������������          family property.�          (Para 1.3.4)
                                       
          ��������                    5.4          �          The framers�          of�          the�          Indian�          Constitution
          �����������������          took�          note�          of�          the�          adverse�          and�          discriminary
          �����������������          position of women in society and�          took�          special
          �����������������          care as per articles 14,15(2)and (3) to prevent
          �����������������          discrimination against�          women.��          Part IV of the
          �����������������          Constitution through the�          Directive�          Principles
          �����������������          of State Policy further provides that the State
          �����������������          shall�          endeavour to ensure equality between man
          �����������������          and woman.(para 1.5)
                                       
          ��������                    5.5          �          Despite�          the��          Constitution��          guaranteeing
          �����������������          equality��          to��          women��          there�          are�          still�          many
          �����������������          discriminatory aspects in the law of succession
          �����������������          against a�          Hindu�          woman�          under�          the�          Mitakshara
          �����������������          system�          of Joint family as per section 6 of the
          �����������������          HSA��          as��          only��          males��          are��          recognised��          as
          �����������������          coparceners.�          (Para 2.4)
                                       
          ��������                    5.6          �          The States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil�          Nadu,
          �����������������          Maharashtra�          and�          Karnataka�          have�          amended�          the
          �����������������          provisions of�          HSA�          effecting�          changes�          in�          the
          �����������������          Mitakshara�          coparcenary�          of the Hindu undivided
          �����������������          family.�          These four states�          have�          declared�          the
          ���������                    ��������daugher to be coparcener.�          The state of Kerala,
          �����������������          however,�          has�          totally�          ablished�          the�          right by
          �����������������          birth and put an end to the Joint Hindu�          Family
          �����������������          instead of tinkering with the coparcenery.�          The
          �                    ����������������consequence��          of�          this�          de-recognition�          of�          the
          �����������������          members of the family,�          irrespective�          of�          their
          �����������������          sex, who are governed by Mitakshara Law is that
          �����������������          they�          become�          tenants�          in�          common�          of the joint
          �����������������          family property and become full owners of their
          �����������������          share.(paras 3.2 & 3.3.1)
                                       
          ��������                    5.7          �          Recommendations
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    �          ������          As a first reaction the Law Commission was
          �����������������          inclined�          to�          recommend�          the�          adoption�          of�          the
          �����������������          Kerala�          Model�          in�          toto as it had abolished the
          �����������������          right by�          birth�          of�          males�          in�          the�          Mitakshara
          �����������������          coparcenary�          and�          brought�          an�          end to the Joint
          �����������������          Hindu Family.�          This�          appeared�          to�          be�          fair�          to
          �����������������          women�          as they did not have any right by birth;
          �����������������          but on further examination it became clear that
          �����������������          if the joint Hindu family�          is�          abolshed�          as�          on
          �����������������          date�          and there are only male coparceners, then
          �����������������          only they would hold as tenants in�          common�          and
          �����������������          women�          would�          not�          get�          anything more than what
          �����������������          they are already�          entitled�          to�          by�          inheritance
          �����������������          under section�          6�          of HSA.�          So the Commission is
          �����������������          of the view that it would be�          better�          to�          first
          �����������������          make�          daughters�          coparceners�          like sons so that
          �����������������          they would be entitled to and get their�          shares
          ���������                    ��������on�          partition�          or�          on�          the�          death�          of�          the male
          �����������������          coparcener and hold thereafter�          as�          tenants�          in
          �����������������          common.�          We recommend accordingly.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.1                    The Andhra Model does not do full�          justice
          �����������������          to          �daughters�          as it denies a daughter, married
          �����������������          before the Act came into force,�          the�          right�          to
          �����������������          become a coparcener.�          Obviously, this was based
          �����������������          on�          the assumption that daughters go out of the
          ������������                    �����family on marriage and thereby cease to be full
          �����������������          members of the family.�          The�          Commission�          wanted
          �����������������          to��          do�          away�          with�          this�          distinction�          between
          �����������������          married and unmarried daughters,�          but�          after�          a
          ����                    �������������great�          deal�          of�          deliberation and agonizing, it
          �����������������          decided,�          that�          it�          should�          be�          retained�          as�          a
          �����������������          married�          daughter has already received gifts at
          �����������������          the�          time�          of��          marriage��          which��          though��          not
          �����������������          commensurate�          with�          the�          son's�          share�          is often
          �����������������          quite substantial.�          Keeping this�          in�          mind�          the
          �����������������          distinction�          between�          daughters already married
          �����������������          before the commencment of�          the�          Act�          and�          those
          �����������������          married thereafter appears to be reasonable and
          �����������������          further would prevent heart-burning and tension
          �����������������          in the family.�          A daughter who is married after
          �����������������          the�          commencement�          of the Act will have already
          �����������������          become a coparcener and entitled to�          her�          share
          �����������������          in�          the�          ancestral�          property�          so�          she�          may�          not
          �����������������          receive any substantial�          family�          gifts�          at�          the
          �����������������          time of�          her�          marriage.���          Hopefully, this will
          �����������������          result in the death of the evil dowry system.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.2                    The Kerala Act abrogated the�          doctrine�          of
          �����������������          pious�          obligation of the son whereas the Andhra
          �����������������          Model and others�          which�          conferred�          coparcenary
          �����������������          rights�          on�          unmarried�          daughters�          are silent in
          �����������������          this regard�          except�          that�          the�          daughter�          as�          a
          �����������������          coparcener�          is�          bound by the common liabilities
          �����������������          and presumably can become a karta in the�          Joint
          �����������������          family.��          We�          recommend�          the�          abrogation of the
          �����������������          doctrine�          of�          pious�          obligation�          and�          that�          the
          �����������������          daughter be a coparcener in the full sense.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.3                    Consequently,�          as above indicated, we have
          �����������������          recommended a combination�          of�          the�          Andhra�          and
          �����������������          Kerala Models.���          We�          are of the view that this
          �����������������          synthesis is in keeping�          with�          justice,�          equity
          ��������������                    ���and family harmony.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.4                    We are also of the view that Section 23 of
          �����������������          HSA which places restrictions on�          the�          daughter
          �����������������          to claim partition of the dwelling house should
          �����������������          be deleted���          altogether.�������          We��          recommend
          �����������������          accordingly.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.5                    As noticed�          earlier�          quite�          often�          fathers
          �����������������          will�          away�          their property so that the daughter
          �����������������          does not get a share even in his�          self-acquired
          �����������������          property.�          Apart from this, quite often persons
          �����������������          will�          away their property to people who are not
          �����������������          relatives, thus totally depriving the�          children
          �����������������          and��          legal��          heirs��          who��          have�          a�          legitimate
          �����������������          expectation.�          Consequently, there�          has�          been�          a
          �����������������          strong�          demand for placing a restriction on the
          �����������������          right of testamentary disposition.��          But�          after
          �����������������          due deliberation the Commission is not inclined
          �����������������          to the placing of any restrictions on the right
          �����������������          of a Hindu deceased to will away property.
                                       
          ��������                    5.8          �          Accordingly, we have drafted a Bill called
          �����������������          the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill, 2000�          so
          �����������������          that��          the��          recommendations�          made�          by�          us�          are
          �����������������          hopefully�          implemented�          with��          speed��          by��          the
          �����������������          government.��          This�          Bill�          has�          been�          annexed as
          �����������������          Appendix 'A'
                                       
                                       
                                       
          ��������                    ���������������������                    ���(JUSTICE B.P.�          JEEVAN REDDY)(RETD)
          ��������                    ������������������������������������          CHAIRMAN
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
          �          (MS JUSTICE LEILA SETH)(RETD)(DR.N.M.GHATATE)(MR.T.K.�          VISHWANATHAN)
          ���                    ���          MEMBER����������������                    ����          MEMBER���                    ���          MEMBER - SECRETARY
                                       
                                       
          �          DATED:�          4.5.2000
                                       
                                       
          ����������������������������������������������                    ��������������                                                                            

(Appendix A)

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2000

A

Bill

������������������� further to amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

1. Short title extent and commencement.- (1) This Act may be called the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000.

(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

� 2 .�� Substitution of new section for section 6 of Act 30 of 1956.- In the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) for section 6 the following section shall be substituted, namely:-

�6. Daughter�s right to be coparcener by birth and devolution of interest in coparcenary property.-��� (1)� On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000, in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara� law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,-

(a) by birth become a coparcener;

(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 and disabilities 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:

��������� Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to a daughter married before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000.

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by will or other testamentary disposition.

(3) When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000, 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 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 pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

��������� Explanation. � For the purpose 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, 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:

��������� Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000, 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, 2000� 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 2000.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a� partition which has been effected

before the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000�.

3.� Omission of section 23 of� the principal Act.-� In the principal Act, section 23 shall be omitted.

�

                                       
          ����������������������������������������������������������                  
          ��������          ��������������������������������������������                  
          �������������������������������������������������������������        
          ����������������������������������������������������������                                                                            
                      ANNEXURE - II                                                                            
                                                                                               
                      ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF                              
                      LAW COMMISSION                  
                                       
          �������                    ������          The Law Commission's�          questionnaire�          is�          divided
          �������          into three�          parts.���          Part I deals with information about
          �������          the respondent;�          part�          II�          elicits�          respondent�          views�          on
          �������          issues��          relating��          to�          various�          aspects�          and�          impact�          of
          �������          coparcenary and lastly part II invites comments from�          the
          �������          respondents.�          The respondents were asked to answer in yes
          �������          and no�          and�          were�          given�          several�          choices.��          Sixty Seven
          �������          respondents had�          replied�          to�          the�          questionnaire.�����          30
          �������          respondents�          were�          mainly�          from the Department of Law and
          �������          rest were either advocates, sociologists or NGOs etc.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          The responses are indicated below:
                                       
          �������                    ������          1.�����          Mitakshara Joint Family to be retained or not?
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Out of the 67 respondents, 49�          opposed�          its
          ����������������          retention�          and�          17�          favoured�          it and one did not
          ����������������          reply (vide Q.1).
          �������                    ��������������                  
          ��������          ������          2. Reasons�          favouring��          retention��          of��          Mitakshara
          ����������������          Coparcenary
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          The�          respondents�          favouring�          retention have
          ����������������          done so mainly for the reason that�          it�          protects
          ����������������          the�          financially weaker members and gives better
          ����������������          rights to males as per parts(b) and (a) of Q.2.
                                       
          �������                    ������          3. Reasons negativating the retention of Mitakshara
          ����������������          Joint Family
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          The respondents were asked to give�          any�          of
          ����������������the�          following�          grounds�          as per Q.3 in case they
          ����������������          chose to negative the�          retention�          of�          Mitakshara
          ����������������          System - (a) the changes would affect harmony in
          ����������������          the�          Family;�          (b)�          that legislative changes have
          ����������������          already eroded the utility�          of�          the�          coparcenary
          ����������������          system;�          (c)�          that�          it�          would have a detrimental
          ����������������          effect on the running of�          family�          business;�          (d)
          ����������������          that�          idle�          members of a joint family prosper at
          ����������������          the expense of the hard working members and�          (e)
          ����������������          that�          coparcenary�          system�          discriminates against
          ����������������          women.
          �������                    ������                    �          ������                  
          ��������          ������                    �          ������          33�          respondents��          preferred��          part(e);��          21
          ����������������          part(b);�          12�          part(a); 8 part(d) and 29 favoured
          ����������������          more than one part.
          �������                    ������                  
          ��������          ������          4. Steps��          to��          be��          taken��          to���          remove���          gender
          ����������������          discrimination
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          The���          Law���          Commission���          suggested��          two
          ������������                    ����alternative choices�          in�          Q.4�          to�          remove�          gender
          ����������������          discrimination.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          The��          majority�          that�          is,�          35�          respondents,
          ����������������          favoured part(b) which�          stated�          that�          Mitakshara
          ����������������          Coparcenary�          should�          be�          retained but the gender
          ����������������          bias to remove by conferring upon daughters�          the
          ����������������          right�          to�          become�          a�          coparcener�          like a son; 22
          ����������������          respondents�          favoured�          part(a),�          that��          is,��          to
          ����������������          abolish the coparcenary right by birth.
                                       
          �������                    ������          5. Daughter becoming a Karta in the Joint Family.
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          33�          respondents�          preferring the daughter to
          ����������������          become Karta in the Joint Family�          of�          Mitakshara
          ����������������          Joint��          Family��          is��          retained;�          10�          respondents
          ����������������          negativated it and 8 did not reply as per Q.5.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          It may�          be�          noted�          that�          this�          question�          is
          ����������������          directly�          relevant�          to�          Q.No.1,�          where�          only�          17
          ����������������          respondents favoured the retention of Mitakshara
          ����������������          system�          whereas�          it�          may��          be��          seen��          that��          33
          ����������������          respondents have preferred the daughter becoming
          ����������������          Karta�          in�          the�          Joint�          Family if Joint Family is
          ����������������          retained.
                                       
          ��                    �����          ������                    �          ������          Several�          choices�          are�          listed�          in�          Q.6�          for
          ����������������          negativating the daughters becoming a Karta such
          ����������������          as��          -�          (a)�          women�          are�          incapable�          of�          managing
          ����������������          properties�          or��          agriculture;��          (b)��          they��          are
          �����                    �����������incapaable�          of�          running�          a�          business;�          (c)�          once
          ����������������          married they move away from their families;�          and
          ����������������          (d)�          they�          are�          susceptible to the influences of
          ����������������          the husband or his family; (e) other reasons.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          11 respondents opted�          for�          part(c);�          5�          for
          ����������������          part(d) and 13 did not reply to this question.
                                       
          �������                    ������          6. Conferring equal rights upon married & unmarried
          ����������������          daughters.
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          36�          replies�          favoured the view that married
          ����������������          daughters��          should��          have��          equal��          rights���          in
          ����������������          coparcenary�          property as per Clause(b); 14 opted
          ����������������          for Clause (a) by limiting this right in�          favour
          ����������������          of unmarried daughters at the time of passing or
          ����������������          enforcing of the enactment and 8 respondents did
          ����������������          not reply as per Q.7.
                                       
          �������                    ������          7. From what period should the Act (when passed) be
          ����������������          applicable?
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          21�          respondents�          did not reply; 10 favoured
          ����������������          choice in part (a) that is to give retrospective
          ����������������          effect from 10 to 15 years prior to the�          passing
          ����������������          of��          the�          Act;�          15�          for�          part(b)�          for�          providing
          ����������������          protection to buyers of property in good�          faith;
          ����������������          12 respondents were in favour of part(c) for not
          ����������������          affecting�          the�          vested�          rights�          and 11 opted for
          ����������������          part(a) of Q.8.
                                       
          �������                    ������          8. Should coparcenary�          right�          be�          confered�          on�          the
          ����������������          mother��          of�          the�          coparcenary�          by�          the�          proposed
          ����������������          legislation?
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          51 out of 67 respondents�          answered�          in�          the
          ����������������          affirmative;�          5�          in�          the negative and 11 did not
          ����������������          respond to Q.9.
                                       
          �������                    ������          9. The Commission vide Q.10 pointed out that�          there
          ����������������          may�          be attempts to defeat the provisions of the
          ����������������          proposed legislation by effecting partitions�          or
          ����������������          by sales.��          Should such transactions be declared
          ����������������          invalid before the�          enactment�          of�          the�          proposed
          ����������������          legislation?
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          The��          respondents��          were�          asked�          to�          choose
          ����������������          between yes or no.�          The majority,�          that�          is,�          58
          ����������������respondents��          answered��          the��          question�          in�          the
          ����������������          affirmative; and 7 were against it;�          and�          9�          did
          ����������������          not reply.
                                       
          �������                    ������          10. On�          the�          question�          of preference of abolition of
          ����������������          special rules discriminating�          against�          daughters
          ����������������          for devolution of agricultural interests.
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          The��          majority��          that�          is,�          54�          respondents
          ����������������          answered Q.11 in the affirmative and only 7 were
          ����������������          against it, 6 did not reply.
                                       
          �������                    ������          11. Dwelling House
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          43 respondents preferred amendment�          of�          law
          ����������������          to�          provide�          that partition can be sought by the
          ����������������          female heirs also even if�          there�          was�          only�          one
          ����������������          ancestral home,�          as          �in part(a) of Q.13.�          On the
          ����������������          issue whether married daughters be given a right
          ����������������          of residence�          in�          the�          dwelling��          house.�����          39
          ����������������          respondents�          expressed�          themselves�          in favour of
          ����������������          this cause of action and�          24�          were�          against�          it.
          ����������������          Further, 27 respondents favoured the deletion of
          ����������������          section�          23�          of�          HSA altogether and 26 opted for
          ����������������          course of action mentioned�          in�          part(b),�          namely
          ��������                    ��������making section 23 inapplicable to dwelling house
          ����������������          belonging�          to Hindu female intestates in respect
          ����������������          to Q.14 and others did not reply.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          The majority of the respondents,�          that�          is,
          ����������������          61��          have�          expressed�          themselves�          in�          favour�          of
          ����������������          special protection to widow's right to reside in
          ����������������          the dwelling�          house�          as�          per��          Q.15.�����          ;��          26
          ����������������          respondents�          have opted for the course of action
          ����������������          in part (b) of Q.16�          by�          declaring�          that�          family
          ����������������          dwelling��          house�          cannot�          be�          alienated�          without
          ����������������          widow's�          consent��          or��          without��          providing��          an
          ����������������          alternative�          accommodation�          to her after she had
          ���������                    �������agreed to the sale of�          the�          dwelling�          house;�          29
          ����������������          respondents��          opted��          for��          part(a),�          to�          confer
          ����������������          `Homestead' rights on�          the�          wife/widow�          like�          in
          ����������������          U.S.A., Canada , and few have not replied to the
          �                    ���������������question.
                                       
          �������                    ������          12. Inheritance��          Certificate��          on��          death��          of��          an
          ����������������          individual by all heirs indicating�          their�          share
          ����������������          in the property
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          In answer to�          Q.��          No.�          17, the majority of
          ������������                    ����the respondents that is 55 favoured�          the�          taking
          ����������������          of an inheritance certificate by all heirs.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �Question�          of authority to be conferred, upon the
          ����������������          issue of `Inheritance Certificate'
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          50�          respondents��          stated��          that��          `District
          ����������������          Munsif's�          Courts'�          should alone be conferred the
          ����������������          authority to issue such Inheritance Certificates
          ����������������          and in response to Q.18, all the 49�          respondents
          ����������������          have�          favoured          �the�          establishment of `Itinerary
          ����������������          Courts' for achieving the said�          purpose�          as�          per
          ����������������          Q.19.
                                       
          �������                    ������          13. Model��          to�          follow�          for�          bringing�          the�          proposed
          ����������������          legislation
          �������                    ������                    �(a)����������          Kerala Model, 1976
          ������                    �          ��������������          (b)�����������          Andhra Model, 1986
          �������                    ��������������          (c)�����������          To amend and recast Section 6 of HSA
          �������                    ��������������          (d)����                    To omit Section 6 altogether�          and�          add
          ��������������������������          an explanation to Section 8.
          �������                    ������                    �          ������                  
          ��������          ������                    �          ������          The�          Commission�          solicited�          opinions on the
          ����������������          important question as to which model�          should�          be
          ����������������          followed��          if��          it��          were�          to�          recommend�          a�          new
          ����������������          legislation for the purpose of conferring rights
          ����������������          on daughters.���          Out�          of��          67��          respondents��          23
          ����������������          respondents�          favoured�          the Andhra Pradesh model;
          ����������������          22 respondents�          favoured�          the�          Kerala�          Model;�          6
          ����������������          respondents�          favoured the recasting of Section 6
          ����������������          of HSA as per part(c) and 7 favoured part(d) for
          ����������������          omitting section 6 altogether as per Q.20.
                                       
          �������                    ������          14. Placing restriction on the Right of Testamentary
          ����������������          disposition
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �44 respondents favoured imposing restrictions on
          ����������������          the right of testamentary disposition�          but�          only
          ����������������          21�          stated�          to limit it to one half of the share
          ����������������          and 22 to 1/3; and 19 respondnets did not favour
          ����������������          imposing restrictions on such a right vide Q.21.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          The last question invited the comments from�          the
          �������          respondents
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �Any other comments
                                       
          �������                    ������          1. Only�          35�          respondents�          made�          general comments in
          ����������������          response to Q.22.�          Their general view�          was�          that
          ����                    ������������the��          concept��          of��          Hindu�          Mitakshara�          was�          not
          ����������������          acceptable�          because�          it�          discriminated��          between
          ����������������          males and females.�          If females were made part of
          ����������������          Mitakshara�          Coparcenary,�          it would reduce gender
          ����������������          inequality to a considerable extent.��          For�          this
          ����������������          purpose,�          Section 6 of the HSA should be amended
          ����������������          by�          Parliament�          and��          so��          amended��          should��          be
          ����������������          implemented uniformly throughout India.
          �������                    ������          2. Stpes must be take to protect the interests of a
          ����������������          wife/widow.
          �������                    ������          3. Restrictions�          on testamentary disposition should
          ����������������          be imposed at least to the extent of half of the
          ����������������          property.
          �������                    ������          4. A few respondents also suggested the formulation
          ����������������          of a Uniform Civil Code.
                                       
          �������                    ������          One of the respondents asked the�          Commission�          to
          �������          make�          an�          empirical study of the issue and not to lightly
          �������          decide to discard the�          existing�          system�          of�          Hindu�          Joint
          �������          Family/HUF�          which was based on mutual love, affection and
          �������          compassion and family as a means of�          fulfilling�          physical
          �������          and economic�          needs.�          According to this respondent, there
          �������          was no gender bias against females under section 6 of the
          �������          HSA.�          In fact, female inherits from the fathers's�          family
          �������          as�          well�          as�          husbands�          family under Sections 6 and 14 of
          �������          HSA.�          She inherited from two families in four capacities.
          �������          Compared to this, the male inherited only from one family
          �������          and in one capacity i.e.�          as a son (or grandson or�          great
          �������          grandson).�          Thus the bias is in favour of the female.
                                       
                                       
          ��������������������������������������������������������                                                                                        ����        
          ���������������������������������������������������������        
                                       
                      Annexure - III                                                                            
                                    ��������������������������������������������                                                          
                      WORKING PAPER ON                              
                      COPARCENARY RIGHTS TO DAUGHTERS UNDER THE HINDU LAW                  
                                       
          �������                    ������          Under�          ancient�          Hindu��          Society,��          a��          woman��          was
          �������          considered�          to�          be�          of�          low social status and treated as a
          �������          dependent with barely any property rights.���          As�          per�          the
          �������          text of Baudhayana, women had no place in the Hindu scheme
          �������          of�          inheritance�          and�          "Females�          were�          devoid of powers and
          �������          incompetent to inherit." But by virtue�          of�          special�          texts
          �������          specified female heirs were given the right to inherit.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The Dayabhaga law�          and�          the�          Benaras�          and�          Mithila
          �������          sub-schools�          of�          Mitakashra�          law�          recognized�          five females
          �������          relations as�          being�          entitled�          to�          inherit�          namely,�          widow
          �������          daughter,��          mother,�          paternal�          grandmother,�          and�          paternal
          �������          great-grandmother and the Madras�          and�          Bombay�          sub-schools
          �������          recognised�          the�          heritable�          capacity of a larger number of
          �������          female heirs.1
                                       
          �������                    ������          Sometimes��          the��          laws��          themselves�          discriminated
          �������          against women.�          This was particularly true in�          the�          sphere
          �������          of family laws in India which are "Personal Laws", that is
          �������          the�          law�          applicable�          to�          a person on the basis of his/her
          �������          religion.�          Some of�          these�          personal�          laws�          exhibit�          strong
          �������          features of discrimination against women.
          �������                    ������          During�          the British period social reform movements
          �������          raised the issue of amelioration of�          women'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
          �������          daughters��          and��          sister��          (thereby��          creating�          a�          limited
          �������          restriction on the rule of�          survivorship).���          During�          this
          �������          period�          another�          landmark legislation conferring ownership
          �������          right on a 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 affected�          not
          �������          only the law of coparcenary but also the law of partition,
          �������          alienation of property, inheritance and adoption.2
                                       
          �������                    ������          The Act of 1937 enabled the widow to succeed along
          �������          with the�          son and to take the same share as the son.�          This
          �������          widow is not a coparcener even though she posses�          a�          right
          �������          akin�          to�          coparcenary�          interest�          in�          the property and is a
          �������          member of the Joint Family.�          However, under the�          Act,�          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 at all.
          �������          But, both enactments�          largely�          left�          untouched�          the�          basic
          �������          features��          of��          discrimination��          against�          women�          and�          were
          �������          subsequently repealed.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The framers of our Constitution were aware of�          the
          �������          low�          position�          of a woman in society and they took special
          ���                    ����care to ensure that the state takes positive steps to give
          �������          her equal status.�          Articles 14, 15(2) and (3)�          and�          16�          of
          �������          the�          Constitution of India 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 to ensure equality between man and woman such
          �������          as equal pay for equal work.�          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.
                                       
          �������                    ������          After 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 came
          �������          into force on 17th June,�          1956.���          The�          HSA�          lays�          down�          a
          �������          uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and aplies
          �������          inter-alia to persons governed by Mitakshara and Dayabhaga
          �������          Schools�          as�          also�          to�          those�          in certain parts of southern
          �������          India who were previously governed by the Murumakkattayan,
          �������          Aliyasantana and Nambudri Systems of Hindu Law.��          The�          Act
          �������          applies to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of
          �������          its�          forms�          or�          developments�          or�          a follower of the Brahmo
          �������          Prarthana or Arya Samaj or to any person who is a Budhist,
          �������          Jain or Sikh by religion.�          In the case of�          a�          testamentary
          �������          disposition�          this�          Act shall not apply and the interest of
          �������          the deceased would be governed by�          the�          Indian�          Succession
          �������          Act, 1925.
                                       
          �������                    ������          There is no�          doubt�          that�          it�          reformed�          the�          Hindu
          �������          personal�          law�          and�          gave�          women�          greater�          property rights,
          �������          allowing women full ownership rights�          instead�          of�          limited
          �������          rights�          in the property they inherited from their husbands
          �������          under Section 14 with�          a�          fresh�          stock�          of�          descent�          under
          �������          sections 15�          and�          16�          of�          this�          Act.��          Daughters were also
          �������          granted property rights in their�          fathers'�          estate.���          The
          �������          attempt��          to�          bring�          about�          reforms�          and�          a�          comprehensive
          �������          codification of Hindu Law was�          resisted�          by�          the�          orthodox
          �������          sections of�          Hindus.�          However, the then Prime Minister Pt.
          �������          Jawaher Lal Nehru who was unequivocally committed to carry
          �������          out these reforms suggested, in order to blunt the edge of
          �������          opposition, that piecemeal legislation�          be�          undertaken�          to
          �������          substantially�          remove�          the�          disparities�          and�          disabilities
          �������          suffered by the Hindu women.�          Consequently it was possible
          �������          to bring into force, the Hindu�          Marriage�          Act,�          1955;�          the
          �������          Hindu�          Adoptions�          and�          Maintenance�          Act,�          1956,�          the Hindu
          �������          Minority�          and�          Guardianship�          Act,�          1956;�          and�          The��          Hindu
          �������          Succession Act, 1956.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Under�          the HSA if a Hindu male dies intestate, all
          �������          his separate or self-acquired property devolves�          in�          equal
          �������          shares�          on�          his�          sons,�          daughters,�          widow�          and�          mother�          as
          �������          specified class I heirs.
                                       
          �������                    ������          However, the devolution of interest to coparcenary
          �������          property is set out in section 6 -
                                       
          �������                    ������          Section 6 of the HSA dealing�          with�          devolution�          of
          �������          interest to coparcenary property states-
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          "When��          a��          male��          Hindu�          dies�          after�          the
          �������          commencement of this Act, having at the time 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�          devlove�          by
          ���������������          testamentary�          or intestate succession, as the case
          ���������������          may be, under this Act and not by survivorship.
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Explanation 1.-- For the purposes 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 the his death, irrespective�          of
          ���������������          whether�          he�          was entitled to claim partition of or
          ���������������          not.
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Explanation 2,-- Nothing contained in�          the
          ���������������          proviso�          to�          his�          section�          shall�          be�          construed as
          ���������������          enabling a person who has separated�          himself�          from
          ���������������          the�          coparcenary�          before the death of the deceased
          ���������������          or any his heirs to claim on intestacy a share�          in
          ���������������          the interest referred to therein.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The�          provision�          above�          noted indicates when a male
          �������          Hindu dies having at the time of his death an interest�          in
          �������          a�          Mitakshara�          coparcenary�          property�          and is survived by a
          �������          female relative specified in class I of�          the�          Schedule�          of
          �������          the�          Act�          or�          a�          male relative specified in that class who
          �������          claims through such female relative, the interest�          of�          the
          �������          deceased�          in�          the�          Mitakshara�          coaprcenary�          property�          shal
          �������          devolve by testamentary or intestate succession and not by
          �������          survivorship.�          In the absence of this event�          his�          interest
          �������          would�          have devolved by survivorship on the living members
          ��                    �����of the coparcenary.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The Act lays specific emphasis on the "interest of
          �������          the deceased" and provides 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�          had�          taken place immediately
          �������          before his death.���          The�          Supreme�          Court�          in�          Gurupada�          v.
          �������          Heerabai3 reaffirming��          in��          State�          v.���          Narayanaro4�          had
          �������          examined Section 6 of the HSA and is�          of�          the�          view�          above
          �������          expressed.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Section 6 of the HSA contemplates the existence of
          �������          a�          coparcenary�          consisting�          of�          male�          members�          who have an
          �������          interest by birth in the joint family�          property.���          At�          no
          �������          time�          before�          partition�          can�          it�          be�          predicted that he is
          �������          entitled to so much share (one half or one fourth�          or�          one
          �������          third) in�          the joint family property.�          Nor can he say that
          �������          such and such items of property belong to him, even if the
          �������          properties are in the possession or use.�          Until�          partition
          �������          takes�          place�          this�          is�          an�          unpredictable�          and fluctuating
          �������          interest which may be enlarged by deaths and diminished by
          �������          births in the family.�          According to the�          noted�          Hindu�          Law
          �������          Jurist�          Mayne, every coparcener has a right to be in joint
          �������          possession and enjoyment of the joint family property�          and
          �������          this�          is�          expressed by saying that there is both community
          �������          of interest and unity of possession.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Every coparcener has�          a�          right�          to�          be�          maintained
          �������          including�          a right to marriage expenses being defrayed out
          �������          of the joint family funds and every coparcener is bound by
          �������          the alienation made by the Karta for�          legal�          necessity�          or
          �������          benefit of the estate and by legitimate acts of management
          �������          of�          the�          Karta;�          every coparcener has a right to object to
          �������          and challenge alienations made without his consent or made
          �������          without legal necessity; and every coparcener has a�          right
          �������          of partition and survivorship.5
                                       
          �������                    ������          A�          widow�          or�          daugher on the death of her husband/
          �������          father cannot claim to be a�          survivor�          as�          she�          is�          not�          a
          �������          coparcener recognised under the Act.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Desipte�          constitutional�          guarantee�          for�          not�          only
          �������          ensuring equality to women, we find that in the sphere�          of
          �������          property rights granted to Hindu women as wives/widows and
          �������          daughters,�          there are still many discriminatory aspects in
          ���                    ����the law.�          When a Woman�          is�          maltreated�          in�          her�          husband's
          �������          family�          or�          there�          is a demand of dowry, there is huge hue
          �������          and cry as the�          instances�          of�          killing�          by�          in�          laws/bride
          �������          burning are not unknown in our society.
                                       
          �������                    ������          But the issue here is regarding the discriminatory
          �������          treatment�          given�          to�          her�          even�          by the members of her own
          �������          natal family.�          In Hindu�          System,�          ancestral�          property�          has
          �������          traditionally been held by a joint Hindu family consisting
          ����                    ���of male�          coparceners.���          Coparcenary is a narrower body of
          �������          persons within a joint�          family�          and�          consists�          of�          father,
          �������          son's son's�          and�          son's�          son's�          son.���          A�          coparcenary can
          �������          consist of a grandfather and grandson, or 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�          women�          could�          not�          be�          coparceners�          they�          were�          not
          �������          entitled�          to any share in the ancestral property by birth.
          �������          A son's share in the�          property�          of�          his�          intestate�          father
          �������          would�          be in addition to the share he acquired at the time
          �������          of birth whereas�          the�          share�          of�          a�          daughter/mother/wife,
          �������          would�          only�          be�          out of the interest the deceased had in a
          �������          coparcenary on his death.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Secondly, the patrilineal assumptions of�          dominant
          �������          male�          ideology�          is�          also reflected in the laws governing a
          �������          Hindu female who dies intestate, laws�          that�          are�          markedly
          �������          different��          from�          those�          governing�          Hindu�          males�          who�          die
          �������          intestate.6 The�          property�          is�          to�          devolve�          first�          to�          her
          �������          children and�          husband:��          secondly, to her husband's heirs;
          �������          thirdly to her father's heirs, and lastly, to her mother's
          �������          heirs.��          The�          provisions�          of�          section�          15(2)�          attempt��          to
          �������          guarantee�          that property continues to be inherited through
          �������          the male heir from which�          it�          came�          either�          back�          to�          (her
          �������          father's family or back to her husband's family.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The�          report�          on�          the�          Status�          of�          Women�          in�          India
          �������          (1971-74) reveals that�          the�          Hindu�          Code�          Bill,�          1948,�          as
          �������          amended�          by�          the�          Select�          Committee�          had in fact suggested
          �������          abolition of the coparcenary�          i.e.���          the�          male�          right�          to
          �������          property by birth, and its conversion to the the Dayabhaga
          �������          system�          where�          the�          daughters�          get�          equal�          shares with the
          �������          brothers as there is no right by birth for the sons.��          But
          �������          the traditional�          resistance�          was too strong.�          Further, the
          �������          case for a daughter's share is often turned�          down�          on�          the
          �������          ground�          that there is hardly a case of a daughter claiming
          �������          equal rights to parental family property in�          view�          of�          the
          �������          over-weighing�          consideration�          of amity with the family and
          ������                    �social disapproval of such a claim.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Thus the�          law�          by�          excluding�          the�          daughters�          from
          �������          participating�          in�          coparcenary ownership (merely by reason
          �������          of their�          sex)�          not�          only�          contributed�          to�          discrimination
          �������          against�          females but has led to oppression and negation of
          �������          her fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.�          As
          �������          such, the State has�          failed�          to�          bring�          about�          a�          suitable
          �������          legislation as�          required�          by�          the Constitution.�          It is law
          ����                    ���that�          can�          contribute�          to�          overcoming�          this�          oppression by
          �������          creating a�          legal�          order�          that�          treats�          females�          on�          equal
          �������          footing.�          Legislation that on the face of it discriminates
          �������          between�          a�          male and a female must be made gender neutral.
          �������          Thus, there is little doubt that�          radical�          reform�          of�          the
          �������          Mitakshara�          law�          of�          coparcenary�          is�          required so that and
          �������          there should be equal distribution of�          property�          not�          only
          �������          with�          respect to the separate or self-acquired property of
          �������          the deceased male but also with respect to�          his�          undivided
          �������          interest in�          the�          coparcenary�          property.���          This should be
          �������          distributed equally�          among�          his�          male�          and�          female�          heirs,
          �������          particularly his son and daughter.�          This will go a one way
          �������          in eradicating the evils of the dowry system prevailing in
          �������          our�          society and award a status of honour and dignity to a
          �������          daughter at least in her family of birth.
                                       
          �������                    ������          It�          is�          a matter of satisfaction to note that five
          �������          states in India, namely,�          Kerala,�          Kanataka,�          Tamil�          Nadu,
          �������          Andhra�          Pradesh�          and�          Maharashtra have taken cognisance of
          �������          the fact that social justice requires a�          woman�          should�          be
          �������          treated�          equally�          both�          in the economic and social sphere.
          �������          Consequently these states�          being�          of�          the�          view�          that�          the
          �������          exclusion�          of�          daughters from participating in coparcenary
          �������          ownership merely�          by�          reason�          of�          their�          sex�          was�          unjust,
          �������          brought��          about��          a��          change��          in�          respect�          of�          Mitakshara
          �������          coparcenary property and extended the right�          by�          birth�          in
          �������          coparcenary property�          to�          the�          daughters�          also.�          Improving
          �������          their economic conditions and social status by giving them
          �������          right by birth equal to that�          of�          sons�          was�          a�          long�          felt
          �������          social�          need�          as�          it would eradicate the baneful system of
          �������          dowry by positive measures.�          The�          practice�          of�          dowry�          has
          �������          emerged as a major social evil in contemporary India.�          The
          �������          gravity�          of�          the�          social evil is reflected all over in our
          �������          country.�          The Dowry Prohibition Act of�          1961�          passed�          with
          �������          the ostensible idea of checking the evil has almost proved
          �������          to be an ineffective legislation.
                                       
          �������                    ������          As�          per�          the�          law�          passed by four of these states,
          �������          (Kerala law being�          different)�          in�          a�          Joint�          Hindu�          Family
          �������          governed�          by�          Mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener
          �������          by birth becomes a coparcener in her own right in the same
          �����                    ��manner�          as�          the�          son�          and�          has�          the�          same�          rights�          in�          the
          �������          coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been
          �������          a�          son,�          inclusive of the right to claim survivorship, and
          �������          is subject to the same�          liabilities�          and�          disabilities�          in
          �������          respect thereto as the son.�          Of course, this change in the
          �������          law�          is�          prospective�          and�          daughters�          married prior to the
          �������          coming into force of the law have been excluded.��          A�          list
          �������          of�          the�          legislation�          passed by the five states is set out
          �������          below and the legislation is annexed as Annexed `IV'.
                                       
          �������          (1) The Joint Hindu�          Family�          System�          (Abolition)�          Act,
          ���������������          1975, Kerala.
                                       
          �������          (2) The Hindu Succession�          (Andhra�          Pradesh�          Amendment)
          ���������������          Act, 1986
          �������          (3) The�          Hindu�          Succession�          (Tamil��          Nadu��          Amendment)
          ���������������          Act,1989.
          �������          (4) The��          Hindu��          Succession��          (Karnataka��          Amendment)
          ���������������          Act,1994.
          �������          (5) The Hindu Succession (Maharashtra Amendment)�          Act,
          ����                    �����������1994
                                       
          �������                    ������          One redeeming feature of these State enactments is
          �������          that�          they�          are more or less couched in the same language,
          �������          though the Kerala model is different.��          The�          Kerala�          Joint
          �������          Hindu�          Family�          System�          (Abolition) Act, 1975 abolished the
          �������          right of birth of males under the Mitakshara�          as�          well�          as
          �������          the Marumakkattayam law, following the Report of the Hindu
          �������          Committee in connection with the Hindu Code Bill Section 3
          �������          of�          the�          Kerala�          Act States that after its commencement, a
          �������          right�          to�          claim�          any�          interest�          in�          any�          property�          of�          an
          �������          ancestor,�          during his or her life time founded on the mere
          �������          fact that the claimant was�          born�          in�          the�          family�          of�          the
          �������          ancestor, shall not be recognised.�          Thus the Act is wholly
          �������          prospective�          and�          fails�          to confirm rights on daughters in
          �������          the existing coparcenary property unlike the Andhra�          model
          �������          legislation.��          Section�          4(i)�          of�          the Kerala Act lays down
          �������          that all the members of a Mitakshara coparcenary will hold
          �������          the property as tenants-in-common on the day the Act comes
          �������          into force as if a partition�          had�          taken�          place�          and�          each
          �������          holding�          his�          or her share separately.7 The major drawback
          �������          in the legislation is that it fails to protect�          the�          share
          �������          of�          the�          daughter�          from�          being defeated by the making of a
          �������          testamentary or other disposition.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The�          approach�          of�          the�          other State Legislature is
          �������          strikingly different.��          It�          elevates�          a�          daughter�          to�          the
          �������          position�          of a coparcener in a Mitakshara coparcenary i.e.
          �������          succession by survivorship.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The above mentioned state amendments to the�          Hindu
          �������          Succession Act 1956, thus considerably altered the concept
          �������          of the�          Mitakshara coparcenary.�          Once a daughter becomes a
          �������          coparcener she continues to be member of the�          natal�          joint
          �������          family even after her marriage.�          This has introduced a far
          �������          reaching change�          in�          the�          law�          of a joint family.�          Section
          �������          29-A of the Andhra Pradesh,�          Tamil�          Nadu�          and�          Maharashtra
          �������          Acts�          and Section 6A of the Karnataka Act states that 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�          a�          son
          �������          and�          have�          the�          same rights in the coparcenary property as
          �������          she would have had if she had been a son inclusive of�          the
          �������          right�          to�          claim�          by survivorship; and shall be subject to
          �������          the same liabilities and disabilities in�          respect�          thereto
          �������          as a son.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Under the Amending Acts the eldest daughter like a
          �������          son�          will�          be�          entitled to be a Karta of the Joint Family,
          �������          and will by virtue of that position exercise the right�          to
          �������          spend�          the�          income�          for joint family purposes and alienate
          �������          the joint family properties for legal necessity or benefit
          �������          of the�          estate.���          However,�          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�          aspect�          of�          succession�          and joint family fall
          �������          under the concurrent list entry 5 contained in the Seventh
          �������          Schedule of the Constitution and both the Centre�          as�          well
          �������          as the�          States�          can�          legislate�          in this field.�          It is also
          �������          noted that the five States�          mentioned�          above�          have�          passed
          �������          their enactments�          with�          the�          assent�          of the President.�          In
          �������          fact, it�          would�          appear�          to�          us�          that�          instead�          of�          having
          �������          piecemeal�          legislations�          for�          effecting�          amendments in the
          �������          Hindu Succession Act by the states, there is a strong case
          �������          for a uniform civil code in this�          area�          governing�          atleast
          �������          Hindu�          Society�          and�          providing�          equality in the family the
          �������          child is�          born�          into,�          irrespective�          of�          the�          sex.����          Our
          �������          suggestion�          would�          tackle�          not only the evils of dowry but
          �������          also the longing for a son and�          would�          promote�          the�          small
          �������          family norm and check the population explosion.
                                       
          �������                    ������          However,�          the�          State�          Amendments�          to�          the HSA have
          �������          given rise to various questions which need to be�          answered
          �������          before�          a�          uniform�          law�          is�          brought�          for�          all the States.
          �������          First, the Amendment has excluded the right of a�          daughter
          �������          from�          the�          coparcenary�          property, who was married prior to
          ������                    �the commencement of the amending Act.��          The�          provision�          is
          �������          similar in all the Acts and the Karnataka provision is set
          �������          out as under:
                                       
          �������          6(d) "Nothing�          in�          clause (b) shall apply to a daughter
          ���������������          married prior to or to a partition which had�          been
          ���������������          effected��          before��          the��          commencement��          of�          Hindu
          ���������������          Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1994."
                                       
          �������                    ������          The reasons for exclusion of the�          already�          married
          �������          daughter appear to be sociological and the fact that dowry
          �������          might have been given at the time of marriage.�          This dowry
          �������          might�          in�          some�          cases have included immovable and movable
          �������          property apart from jewellery.��          But�          there�          may�          be�          many
          �������          cases�          where�          nothing          �has�          been�          given and there does not
          �������          appear to be any cogent reason for discriminating�          between
          �������          a married and an unmarried daughter.�          Excluding a daughter
          �������          married�          before�          the�          date of commencement of the Amending
          �������          Acts is wrong in our opinion�          as�          all�          daughters�          must�          be
          �������          treated equally,�          and�          at�          par�          with�          sons.��          By denying a
          �������          married daughter equal rights in coparcenary�          property,�          a
          �������          large�          number�          of�          females�          are�          getting�          left�          out of the
          �����                    ��benefit.
                                       
          �������                    ������          A recent Supreme Court decision in Savita�          Samvedi
          �������          v.��          Union�          of�          India8�          lends�          support�          to the view that a
          �������          distinction between a married and�          an�          unmarried�          daughter
          �������          will be unconstitutional.�          The Supreme Court held that the
          �������          circular in fettering the choice of a retiring employee to
          �������          nominate��          a��          married��          daughter��          is��          "wholly��          unfair,
          �������          unreasonable and gender biased" and liable�          to�          be�          struck
          �������          down under�          Article�          14 of the Constitution.�          Referring to
          �������          the distinction drawn by the circular�          between�          a�          married
          �������          and an unmarried�          daughter,�          Punchhi,�          J.�          observed:�          "The
          �������          eligibility of a married daughter must be placed at a�          par
          �������          with�          an�          unmarried�          daughter�          (for she too must have been
          �������          once in that State) so as to claim the benefit....."
                                       
          �������                    ������          The Preamble to the Amending�          Acts�          indicates�          the
          �������          objective��          as��          the�          removal�          of�          discrimination�          against
          �������          daughters inherent in the mitakshare coparcenary�          and�          the
          �������          eradication�          of�          the�          baneful�          system of dowry by positive
          �������          measures thus ameliorating the condition of women�          in�          the
          �������          human society.���          This�          is only a subsidiary or collateral
          �������          objective and it cannotg be said that�          the�          classification
          �������          drawn�          by�          the Amending Acts bears a rational relationship
          �������          to the objective sought to be achieved.9
                                       
          �������                    ������          Thus cl.(d) of�          S.6A�          of�          the�          Karnataka�          Act�          and
          �������          clause�          (iv)�          of�          29A�          of�          the�          other three Acts should be
          �������          deleted and the main object of the Acts should be only�          to
          �������          remove��          discrimination��          inherent��          in��          the��          Mitakshara
          �������          coparcenary against daughters both married and unmarried.
                                       
          �������                    ������          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 and the Lex�          Situs
          �������          principle will�          also�          arise.��          Thus is the need for an all
          �������          India Act or Uniform Civil Code more immediate.
                                       
          �������                    ������          It is important�          to�          notice�          what�          the�          impact�          of
          �������          Section�          6-A�          of the Karnataka Act and Section 29-A of the
          �������          other three Acts would be�          on�          Section�          23�          of�          the�          Hindu
          �������          Seccession Act,�          1956.�          Section 23 of the Hindu Succession
          �������          Act 1956 provides that on the death of Hindu intestate�          in
          �������          case of a dwelling house wholly occupied by members of the
          �������          joint�          family,�          a�          female�          heir�          is not entitled to demand
          �������          partition unless the male�          heir�          chooses�          to�          do�          so;�          and
          �������          secondly�          it�          curtails�          even�          the�          right of residence of a
          �������          daughter�          by�          stating�          that�          where�          such�          female�          heir�          is
          �������          daughter, she shall be entitled to a right of residence in
          �������          the�          dwelling�          house          �only if she is unmarried or has been
          �������          deserted�          by�          or�          separated�          from�          her�          husband�          or�          is�          a
          �������          widow."10�          Whether these restrictions will be operative in
          �������          the case of female coparceners will have to be�          considered
          �������          and�          we�          must�          focus�          on�          the�          interpretation of the words
          �������          `Hindu intestate `and'�          `heirs'�          exclude�          coparceners�          and
          �������          coparcenary interests�          from their scope.�          Section 6 of the
          �������          Hindu Succession Act retains the�          rule�          of�          devolution�          of
          ����                    ���undivided coparcenary interest by survivorship in spite of
          �������          the significant change introduced in it.�          Under the Act it
          �������          should be clarified that female coparcener will have equal
          �������          rights�          as�          males in the matter of asking for partitioning
          �������          and allotment�          to�          them�          of�          their�          share�          in�          coparcenary
          �������          property.��          Thus�          Section�          23�          from the HSA may need to be
          �������          deleted altogether.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          It�          is�          noteworthy, that there is hardly a
          �������          case of a daughter claiming equal rights�          to�          property�          in
          �������          the�          parental�          family,�          even�          though�          her dowry may not be
          �������          equal to�          the�          son's�          share.���          This�          is�          due�          mainly��          to
          �������          overweighing consideration of modesty and desire for amity
          �������          and the�          fear of social disapproval.�          A study prepared for
          �������          the Ministry�          of�          Education�          and�          Social�          Welfare�          on�          the
          �������          succession�          rights�          of�          women�          in�          Andhra Pradesh, is very
          �������          revealing in this regard.11 It observed that 38�          per�          cent
          �������          of�          women�          in Godavari and 12 per cent of women in Krishna
          �������          districts reported considerations of family�          prestige,�          27
          �������          percent�          of the respondents in both the districts reported
          �������          consideration of getting�          bad�          name�          among�          relatives�          and
          �������          others,�          for not taking resort to courts of law in getting
          �������          their due�          share�          in�          property.���          Cost��          of��          litigation,
          �������          complicated the procedures of law and uneconomic nature of
          �������          the deal in terms of the cost involved in property are the
          �������          other reasons stated by the respondents.
                                       
          �������                    ������          In�          view�          of the limited assertion of equal rights
          �������          to property by women, it is necesary to understand that if
          �������          equality exists only as a phenomenon outside the awareness
          �������          and approval of the majority of the people, it�          cannot�          be
          �������          realzed�          by�          a section of women socialized in tradtions 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.
          �������          This is what the�          Law�          Commission�          suggests�          and�          we�          have
          �������          attempted to draft a Bill which is annexed.
                                       
          �������          Bill No.�          _______ of 1998
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          An Act to amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          Whereas the Constitution of India has proclaimed
          �������          equality before the law as a Fundamental Right;
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          And�          Whereas�          the exclusion of the daughter from
          �������          participation in coparcenary ownership merely�          by�          reason
          �������          of her sex is contrary thereto;
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          And�          Whereas�          such exclusion of the daughter has
          �������          also led to the creation of the socially pernicious dowry
          �������          system with its attendant social evils.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          And Whereas this baneful system of dowry has�          to
          �������          be��          eradicated��          by��          positive��          measures��          which��          will
          �������          simultaneously ameliorate the condition of women�          in�          the
          �������          Hindu society;
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          Be�          it�          enacted by Parliament in the fifty-first
          �������          year of the Republic of India as follows:
                                       
          �������          Short Title, Extent and Commencement
          �������                    ������          1.(1) This Act may�          be�          called�          the�          Hindu�          Succession
          ����������������          (Amendment) Act, 2000.
          �������                    ������          (2) It�          extends�          to�          the whole of India except Jammu
          ����������������          and Kashmir;
          �������                    ������          (3) It shall be deemed to have come�          into�          force�          on
          ����������������          the day of ________________, 1998
                                       
          �������                    ������          After�          Section�          6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 the
          �������          following sections shall be inserted�          by�          virtue�          of�          the
          �������          Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1998 (.....�          of 1998).
                                       
          �������          6A.���          Notwithstanding�          anything contained in section 6
          �������          of this Act -
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �Equal�          rights�          to��          daughters��          in��          coparcenary
          ����������������          property
                                       
          �������                    ������          (i) 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 and have the�          same�          rights�          in
          ����������������          the�          coparcenary�          property as she would have had
          ����������������          if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to
          ����������������          claim by survivorship, and shall be�          subject�          to
          ����������������          the same liabilities and disabilities in respect
          ����������������          thereto as the son;
                                       
          ����                    ���          ������          (ii) at�          a partition in such a joint Hindu Family the
          ����������������          coparcenary property shall be so divided�          as�          to
          ����������������          allot�          to�          a�          daughter�          the�          same�          share�          as�          is
          ����������������          allotable to a son.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Provided��          that�                    �the��          share��          which���          a
          ����������������          pre-deceased�          son�          or�          a�          pre-deceased�          daughter
          ����������������          would have got at the partition if he or she had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of the partition shall be
          ����������������          allotted�          to�          the�          surviving��          child��          of��          such
          ����������������          predeceased��          son��          or��          of��          such�          pre-deceased
          ����������������          daughter;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Provided further that the share�          allotable
          ����������������          to�          the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son
          �������                    ���������or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of the�          partition,�          shall
          ����������������          be�          allotted�          to�          the child of such pre-deceased
          ����������������          child�          of�          the�          pre-deceased�          son�          or��          of��          the
          ����������������          pre-deceased daughter as the case may be;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iii) any�          property�          to�          which�          a female Hindu becomes
          ����������������          entitled by virtue of the provisions�          of�          clause
          ����������������          (i)�          shall�          be held by her with the incidents of
          ����������������          coparcenary�          ownership�          and�          shall�          be�          regarded
          ����������������          notwithstanding�          anything contained in this Bill
          ����������������          or anyother law for the time being in force,�          as
          ����������������          property�          capable of being disposed of by her by
          ����������������          will or other testamentary disposition;
                                       
          �������          6B. Interest to devolve by survivorship on death
                                       
          ��������                    �����          When a female Hindu dies after the�          commencement
          ����������          of�          the�          Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000 having
          ����������          at the time of her death an interest in�          a�          Mitakshara
          ����������          coparcenary�          property,�          her�          interest�          in the property
          ����������          shall devolve by survivorship as in the case of�          males
          ����������          upon�          the surviving members of the coparcenary and not
          ����������          in accordance this Act.
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Provided that if the deceased had left any child
          ����������          or child of a pre-deceased child the interest�          of�          the
          ����������          deceased�          in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall
          ����������          devolve by testamentary or intestate succession as the
          ����������          case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Explanation-1.- For the purposes of this section, the                  
          ��������          interest of a female Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall
          ����������          be deemed to be the share in the property�          that�          would
          ����������          have�          been�          allotted�          to�          her�          if�          a�          partition of the
          ����������          property had taken place immediately before her�          death
          ����������          irrespective�          of�          whether�          she�          was�          entitled to claim
          ����������          partition or not.
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Nothing contained in the proviso to this section
          ����������          shall be construed as enabling a�          person�          who,�          before
          ����������          the�          death�          of�          deceased,�          has�          separated�          himself�          or
          ����������          herself from the coparcenary, or any�          of�          his�          or�          her
          ����������          heirs�          to�          claim�          on intestacy a share in the interest
          ����������          referred to therein.
                                       
          �������          6C. Preferential�          right�          to�          acquire��          property��          in
          ����������������          certain cases
                                       
          �������          (1)          ��          Where, after the commencement of the Hindu
          ����������������          Succession�          (Amendment) Act, 2000 an interest in
          ����������������          any immovable property of an intestate or in any
          ����������������          business carried�          on�          by�          him�          or�          her,�          whether
          ����������                    ������solely�          or�          in�          conjunction with others devolves
          ����������������          under section 6A or section 6B upon two or�          more
          ����������������          heirs�          and�          any�          one�          of�          such heirs proposes to
          ����������������          transfer his or her interest in the property�          or
          ��                    ��������������business,���          the���          other��          heirs��          shall��          have
          ����������������          preferential�          right�          to�          acquire�          the��          interest
          ����������������          proposed to be transferred.
                                       
          �������          (2)          ��          The�          consideration�          for which any interest
          ����������������          in�          the          �property�          of�          the��          deceased��          may��          be
          ����������������          transferred�          under�          this�          section�          shall�          in the
          ����������������          absence of any agreement between the parties, be
          ����������������          determined by the court,�          on�          application�          being
          ����������������          made�          to�          it�          in�          this behalf, and if any person
          ����������������          proposing to acquire the interest is not willing
          ����������������          to�          acquire�          it��          for��          the��          consideration��          so
          ����������������          determined,�          such�          person shall be liable to pay
          ��������                    ��������all costs of or incidential to the application.
                                       
          �������          (3)          ��          If there are two or more heirs,�          proposing
          ����������������          to acquire any interest under this section, that
          ����������������          heir�          who�          offers�          the highest consideration for
          ����������                    ������the transfer shall be preferred.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Explanation:- In this section `court' means the court                  
          ����������          within the limits of whose jurisdiction the�          immovable
          ����������          property is situate or the business is carried on, and
          ����������          includes          �any�          other�          court which the State Government
          ����������          may, by notification in the official�          Gazette�          specify
          ����������          in this behalf.
                                       
          ��������                                FOOT NOTE                              
                                       
          �������          1.����                    M.�          Indira Devi,�          "Woman's�          Assertion�          of�          Legal
          ����������������          Rights�          to Ownership of Property" p.168 in Women
          ����������������          AND Few, Contemporary Problems, (1994) edt by L.
          ����������������          Sarkar & B.�          Sivaramayya/
                                       
          �������          2�����                    Mayne, Treaties�          on�          Hindu�          Law�          &�          Usage,�          14th
          ����������������          Edition ed.�          by Alladi Kuppuswami, (1996)
                                       
          �������          3.������������          AIR 1978 SC 1239
                                       
          �������          4.������������          AIR 1985 SC 716
                                       
          �������          5.������������          Ibid.
          �������          6.����                    Ratna�          Kapur�          and��          Brenda��          Cossman,��          Feminist
          ����������������          Engagements with Law in India (1996)
          �������          7.����                    B.����          Sivaramayya,��          "Coparcenary��          Rights��          to
          ����������������          Daughters�          Constitutional�          and�          interpretational
          ����������������          issues" (1997) 3 SCC(J), page 25.
          �������          8.����                    (1996) 2 SCC 380
          �������          9.������������          Ibid
          �������          10.���          Proviso to section 23 of HSA.
          �������          11. Department�          of�          Cooperation & Applied Economics,
          ����������������          Andhra�          University,�          Agricultural�          Growth�          Rural
          ����������������          Development�          and Poverty selected writings of G.
          ����������������          Parthasarthy 497 (1998 as noted in Supra, n 1.
                                       
                                       
          ��������������������������������������������                    ���������������                                                                            
                      ANNEXURE - IV                              
                                    ����������������������������������������������������                                                          
                      The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System                              
                                    (Abolition) Act, 1975*                                            
                                       
          ���                    ������(Act 30 of 1976 amended by Act 15 of 1978)
          ���������          ----------
                                       
          ��������          An Act to abolish the joint family�          system�          among
          ���������������          Hindus in the state of Kerala.
                                       
          ��������          Preamble:- Whereas it is expedient to abolish the
          ���������������          joint�          family system among Hindus in the state of
          ���������������          Kerala
                                       
          ��������          Be it enacted in the�          Twenty-Sixth�          Year�          of�          the
          ���������������          Republic of India as follows:-
                                       
          �������                    ������          1.�����          Short title, extent and commencement -
          �������                    ������                    �(1)�          The�          Act�          may�          be�          called the Kerala
          �����������������������          Joint�          Hindu�          Family�          System�          (Abolition)
          �����������������������          Act, 1975.
          �������                    ������                    �(2)�          It�          extends�          to�          the�          whole State of
          �����������������������          Kerala.
          �������                    ������          ** (3) It shall come into force on such date
          �����������������������          as the Government�          may,�          by�          notification
          �����������������������          the Gazette, appoint.
                                       
                                       
                                       
          �������          2.����          Definition�          -�          In�          this Act, "joint Hindu family"
          �������          means any Hindu family with�          community�          of�          property�          and
          ���                    ����includes-
                                       
          �������                    ������          *The��          above�          Act�          received�          the�          assent�          of�          the
          �������          President on the 10th�          day�          of�          August,�          Kerala�          Gazette,
          �������          Extraordinary No.484, dated 17.8.1976.
                                       
          �������                    ������          **The�          Act�          came�          into�          force on 1-12-1976 as per
          �������          notification No.�          17469/Leg (A)2/69 Law,�          dated�          18.11.76
          �������          S.R.O.�          1185/76.�          K.G.No.�          46, dated 23.11.1976.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �(1)���          a�          tarward or tavazhi governed by
          �����������������������          the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, the
          �����������������������          Travancore Nayar Act,�          II�          of�          1100,�          the
          �����������������������          Travancore�          Ezhava�          Act�          III of 1100, the
          �����������������������          Nanjinad�          Vellala�          Act��          of��          1101,��          the
          �����������������������          Travancore�          kshatriya�          Act�          of�          1108, the
          ���������������                    ��������Travancore�          krishnavaka��          Marumakkattayam
          �����������������������          Act,�          VII�          of�          1115, the Cochin Nayar Act
          �����������������������          XXXIX��          of��          1113,���          or���          the���          Cochin
          �����������������������          Marumakkattayam Act, XXXIII of 1113;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �(2)���          a�          kutumba�          or kavaru governed by
          �����������������������          Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �(3)���          an illom governed by�          the�          Kerala
          �����������������������          Nambudiri Act, 1958; and
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �(4)���          an���          undivided���          Hindu��          family
          �����������������                    ������governed by the Mitakshara law.
                                       
          �������                    ������          3. Birth in family not to give rise to right
          �����������������������          in property -                  
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          On and after the commencement�          of
          �����������������������          this�          Act�          no right to claim any interest
          �����������                    ������������in any property of an ancestor during his
          �����������������������          or her lifetime which is founded�          on�          the
          �����������������������          mere�          fact�          that the claimant was born in
          �����������������������          the�          family�          of�          the�          ancestor�          shall�          be
          ���                    ��������������������recognized in any court.
          �������                    ������                  
          ��������          ������          (4) Joint�          tenancy�          to be replaced by tenancy
          �����������������������          in common --
          �������                    ������                  
          ��������          ������                    �(1) All members�          of�          an�          undivided�          Hindu
          �����������������������          family�          governed�          by�          the�          Mitakshara law
          �����������������������          holding any coparcenary property�          on�          the
          �����������������������          day�          this Act comes into force shall with
          �����������������������          effect from that day, be deemed�          to�          hold
          �����������������������          it as tenants-in-common as if a partition
          �����������������������          had�          taken place among all the members of
          �����������������������          that undivided Hindu family�          as�          respects
          �����������������������          such�          property and as if each one of them
          �����������������������          is holding his or her share separately as
          �����������������������          full owner thereof;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �Provided that nothing in this sub-section
          �����������������������          shall affect the right to maintenance�          or
          �����������������������          the right to marriage or funeral expenses
          �����������������������          out�          of�          the�          coparcenary property or the
          �����������������������          right�          to�          residence,�          if�          any,�          if��          the
          �����������������������          members�          of�          an�          undivided�          Hindu family,
          �����������������������          other�          than�          persons�          who          ��have��          become
          �����������������������          entitled to hold their shares separately,
          �����������������������          &�          any such right can be enforced if this
          �����������������������          Act had not been passed.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �(2)���          All�          members�          of�          a�          joint�          Hindu
          ���������                    ��������������family,�          other�          than�          an�          undivided Hindu
          �����������������������          family referred to�          in�          sub-section�          (1),
          �����������������������          holding�          any joint family property on the
          �����������������������          day of this Act comes into force,�          shall,
          �                    ����������������������with�          effect�          from�          that day be deemed to
          �����������������������          hold it as�          tenants-in-common,�          as�          if�          a
          �����������������������          partition of such property per capita had
          �����������������������          taken�          place among all the members of the
          �����������������������          family�          living�          on�          the�          day��          aforesaid,
          �����������������������          whether�          such�          members�          were�          entitled to
          �����������������������          claim such partition or not under the law
          �����������������������          applicable to them, and as i.e.�          each one
          �����������������������          of the members�          is�          holding�          his�          or�          her
          �����������������������          share separately as full owner thereof.
                                       
          ��������          NOTES
                                       
          ��������                    �����          By�          virtue�          of�          this Act the joint family
          ���������������          system�          of�          the�          Marumakkattayam��          Tarwad��          stood
          ���������������          abolished��          by�          the�          operation�          of�          law�          and�          the
          ���������������          properties�          of�          the��          joint��          family��          are��          held
          ���������������          thereafter by the members of the joiint family as
          ���������������          tenants-in-common as if there was a partition.1
                                       
          ��������                    �����          If under the custom, a female is entitled
          ���������������          to ask for partition or is granted a share in the
          ���������������          property�          in lieu of her right to maintenance, or
          ���������������          marriage expenses, then only she is entitled to a
          ���������������          share�          in�          the�          property.2�          Where�          there�          was��          a
          ���������������          partition�          in�          a�          joint�          family consisting of the
          ���������������          asessee, his wife and son�          prior�          to�          the�          coming
          ���������������          into�          force�          of�          this�          Act,�          it was held that the
          ���������������          property held by the assessee was his�          individual
          ���������������          property�          and�          the�          wife�          is�          not entitled to any
          ���������������          share in it.�          Therefore, the entire�          income�          from
          ���������������          the�          property�          in the hands of the assessee is to
          ���������������          be assessed in his hand as an individual.3
                                       
          ��������                    �����          After passing of Joint�          Family�          Abolition
          ���������������          Act, 1975, section 17 of the Hindu Succession Act
          ���������������          does not become inoperative in respect of persons
          ���������������          living on 18.6.1956 (Date of coming into force of
          ���������������          Hindu�          Succession�          Act)�          and�          who�          died after the
          ���������������          passing�          of�          Joint�          Family��          Abolition��          Act��          on
          ���������������          1.12.1976.��          It�          also does not become inoperative
          ���������������          in respect of persons who were born on�          or�          after
          ���������������          18.6.1956 but before 1.12.1976 and who died on or
          ���������������          after that date.
                                       
          �������                    ������          5. Rule�          of�          pious�          obligations of Hindu son
          �����������������������          abrogated.-
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �(1)���          After the�          commencement�          of�          this
          �����������������������          Act,�          no court shall, save as provided in
          �����������������������          sub-sections (2) 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 or�          any�          alienation�          of
          �����������������������          property in respect of or in satisfaction
          �����������������������          of�          any�          such�          debt�          on the ground of the
          �����������������������          pious obligation under the Hindu law, the
          �����������������������          son,�          grandson�          or�          great��          grandson��          to
          ���������������                    ��������discharge any such debt.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �(2)���          In��          the��          case��          of��          any��          debt
          �����������������������          contracted�          before�          the�          commencement�          of
          �����������������������          this���          Act,���          nothing���          contained��          in
          �����������������������          sub-section(1) 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 if this Act
          ����������������������                    ���������had not been passed.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Explanation- For�          the�          purposes of sub-section
          �������������������������������          (2),��          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 this Act.
                                       
          ��������          The expression "Hindu Law" in this section has to
          ���������������          be understood�          in�          a�          broad�          sense�          as�          including
          ���������������          Marumakkattayam�          Law�          which is also part of Hindu
          ���������������          Law.4
                                       
          ������                    �          ������          6. Liability�          of�          members�          of�          joint��          Hindu
          �����������������������          family�          for�          debts�          contracted before Act
          �����������������������          not affected -                  
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Where a debt binding on�          a�          joint
          �����������������������          Hindu�          family�          has been contracted before
          �����������������������          the commencement of this Act by Karnavan,
          �����������������������          Yejman, Manager or Karta, as the case may
          �����������������������          be,�          of�          the��          family,��          nothing��          herein
          �����������������������          contained�          shall�          affect the liability of
          �����������������������          any member of the family to discharge any
          �����������������������          such debt and any such liability�          may�          be
          �����������������������          enforced��          against�          all�          or�          any�          of�          the
          �����������������������          members liable, therefore,�          in�          the�          same
          �����������������������          manner and to the same extent as it would
          �����������������������          have been enforceable if this Act had not
          �����������������������          been passed.
                                       
          �������                    ������          7. Repeal.-
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �(1)�          Save as otherwise expressly provided
          �����������������������          in�          this��          Act,��          any��          text,��          rule��          or
          �����������������������          interpretation of Hindu law or any custom
          �����������������������          or�          usage�          part�          of�          that�          law�          in�          force
          ��������������������                    ���immediately before�          the�          commencement�          of
          �����������������������          this�          Act shall cease to have effect with
          �����������������������          respect to any matter for which provision
          �����������������������          is made in this Act.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �(2) The Acts mentioned in�          the�          schedule,
          �����������������������          in�          so�          far as they apply to the whole or
          �����������������������          any part of�          the�          State�          of�          Kerala,�          are
          �����������������������          hereby repealed.
                                       
          �������          8.����                    Proclamation�          IX of 1124 and Act XVI 1961
          ��������                    ���������������to continue in force5
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Notwithstanding any�          thing�          contained�          in
          ���������������          this�          Act�          or in any other law for the time being
          ���������������          in force, Proclamation (IX of�          1124)�          dated�          29th
          ���������������          June,��          1949,�          promulgated�          by�          the�          Maharaja�          of
          ���������������          Cochin, as�          amended�          by�          the�          Valiamma�          Thampuran
          ���������������          Kovilakam�          Estate and the Palace Fund (Partition)
          ���������������          and Act, the Kerala�          Joint�          Hindu�          Family�          system
          ���������������          (Abolition)Amendment�          Act�          1978�          and the valiamma
          ���������������          Thampuron���          Kovilakam���          Estate���          and���          Palace
          ���������������          Fund(Partition)5 1961 (16 of 1961), as amended by
          ���������������          the�          said�          Act, shall continue to be in force and
          ���������������          shall apply to the Valiamma�          Thampuran�          Kovilakam
          ���������������          Estate�          &�          the�          Palace�          Fund�          administered by the
          ���������������          Board of Trustees appointed under�          section�          3�          of
          ���������������          the said proclamation.
                                       
          �������          The Schedule
          �������          [See section 7(2)
          �������          Acts repealed
                                       
          �������                    ������          (1) The��          Madras�          Marumakkathayam�          Act,�          1932
          �����������������������          (XXII of 1933);
          �������                    ������          (2) The Madras Aliyasantana Act,�          1949(IX�          of
          �����������������������          1949);
          �������                    ������          (3) The Travancore Nayar Act, II of 1100;
          �������                    ������          (4) The Travancore Ezhava Act, III of 1100;
          �������                    ������          (5) The�          Nanjinad�          Vallala Act of 1101 (VI of
          �����������������������          1101);
          �������                    ������          (6) The Travancore�          Kshatriya�          Act�          of�          1108,
          �����������������������          (VII of 1108);
          �������                    ������          (7) The��������          Travancore�������          Krishnavaka
          �����������������������          Marumakkathayee Act, (VII of 1115);
          �������                    ������          (8) The Cochin Thiyya Act, VII of 1107;
          �������                    ������          (9) The Cochin Makkathayam Thiyya�          Act,�          XVII
          �����������������������          of 1115;
          �������                    ������          (10) The Cochin Nayar Act, XXIX of 1113;
          �������                    ������          (11) The Cochin Marumakkathayam Act, XXXIII of
          �����������������������          1113;
          �������                    ������          (12) The Kerala Nambudiri�          Act,�          1958�          (27�          of
          �����������������������          1958)
          ��������                                FOOT NOTES                              
                                       
          �������          1. WTO�          v Madhavan Nambiar(K)(1988) 169 ITR 810; CWT
          ���������������          v Padmanabhan (PM) (1989) 179 ITR 243.
                                       
          �������          2. CWT v Padmanabhan (PM)(1989)179 ITR 243;
                                       
          �������          3. Deputy CAgIT v�          Chidambaram�          (RS)(1994)�          209�          ITR
          ���������������          531(Ker)�          distinguishing Surjit Lal Chhabda v CIT
          ���������������          (1975) 101 ITR 776 (SC): 1976(2) SCR 164; Krishna
          ���������������          Prasad�          (C)�          v�          CIT��          (1974)��          97��          ITR��          493(C);
          ���������������          Narendranath�          (NV)�          v CWT (1969) 74 ITR 190 (SC):
          ���������������          1970 SC 14: Gowli Bhddanna v CIT�          (1966)�          60�          ITR
          ���������������          293 (SC).
                                       
          �������          4. Chellamma v Narayana 1993 Ker 146 (FB).
                                       
          �������          5. By�          section�          8�          of�          Valiamma�          Thampuram Kovilakam
          ���������������          Estate and the Palace Fund�          (Partition)�          and�          the
          ���������������          Kerala�          Joint�          Hindu�          Family�          System�          (Abolition)
          ���������������          Amendment�          Act,�          1978�          (Act�          15�          of�          1978)�          after
          ���������������          section 7 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System
          ���������������          (Abolition)�          Act, 1975 (Act 30 of 1976) section 8
          ��������                    �������was inserted and shall be deemed always�          to�          have
          ���������������          been inserted.
          �����������������������������������������������������������                                                                                      
                                       
                      ANDHRA PRADESH ACTS, ORDINANCES                              
                                    AND REGULATIONS, ETC.                              
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          The�          following Act of Andhra Pradesh Legislative
          �������          Assembly which was reserved by the Governor on�          the�          10th
          �������          October,�          1985�          for�          the�          consideration and assent of the
          �������          President received the assent of�          the�          President�          on�          the
          �������          16th�          May,�          1986�          and�          the�          said�          assent�          is hereby first
          �������          published on the 22nd May, 1986�          in�          the�          Andhra�          Pradesh
          �������          Gazette for general information.
                                       
          ��������          ACT NO. 13 OF 1986
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �An�          Act�          to amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
          ����������������          in�          its�          application�          to�          the�          State�          of�          Andhra
          ����������������          Pradesh.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �Whereas the Constitution of India has proclaimed
          ����������������          equality before the law as a Fundamental Right;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �And�          Whereas�          the exclusion of the daughter from
          ����������������          participation in coparcenary ownership merely by
          ����������������          reason of her sex is contrary thereto;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �And Whereas such exclusion of the�          daughter�          has
          ����������������          led�          to�          the creation of the socially pernicious
          ����������������          dowry system with its attendant social ills.
          �������                    ������                    �And�          Whereas this baneful system of dowry has to
          ����������������          be eradicated by positive�          measures�          which�          will
          ����������������          simultaneously ameliorate the condition of women
          ����������������          in the Hindu society;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �Be�          it�          enacted�          by�          Legislative Assembly of the
          ����������������          State of Andhra Pradesh in the Thirty-Sixth Year
          ����������������          of the Republic of India as follows:
                                       
          ��������          Short Title, Extent and Commencement
                                       
          �������                    ������          1.(1) This�          Act�          may�          be�          called�          the Hindu Succession
          ����������������          (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986
          �������                    ������          (2) It extends to the whole of the State�          of�          Andhra
          ����������������          Pradesh.
          �������                    ������          (3) It�          shall�          be�          deemed to have come into force on
          ����������������          the 5th September, 1985.
                                       
          �������                    ������          2 Insertion of a new Chapter II-A in�          Central�          Act
          ����������������          30 of 1956
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �In the Hindu Succession Act,�          1956�          (hereinafter
          ����������������          referred�          to as this Act) after Chapter -II, the
          ����������������          following chapter shall be inserted, namely:-
                                       
                                       
                                       
                      CHAPTER�              - II-A.                              
                                                                                               
                      Succession by survivorship                              
                      Equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property                  
                                       
          �������                    ������          29A.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section�          6
          ����������������          of this Act-
                                       
          �������                    ������          (i) 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 and have the same rights in
          ����������������          the coparcenary property as she would�          have�          had
          ����������������          if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to
          ����������������          claim�          by�          survivorship, and shall be subject to
          ����������������          the same liabilities and disabilities in respect
          ����������������          thereto as the son;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (ii) at�          a partition in such a joint Hindu Family the
          ����������������          coparcenary property shall be so divided�          as�          to
          ����������������          allot�          to�          a�          daughter�          the�          same�          share�          as�          is
          ����������������          allotable to a son.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Provided��          that��          the��          share��          which���          a
          ����������������          pre-deceased          �son�          or�          a�          pre-deceased�          daughter
          ����������������          would have got at the partition if he or she had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of the partition shall be
          ����������������          allotted�          to�          the�          surviving��          child��          of��          such
          ����������������          predeceased��          son��          or��          of��          such�          pre-deceased
          ����������������          daughter;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Provided further that the share�          allotable
          ����������������          to�          the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son
          ����������������          or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of the�          partition,�          shall
          ����������������          be�          allotted�          to�          the child of such pre-deceased
          ����������������          child�          of�          the�          pre-deceased�          son�          or��          of��          the
          ��������                    ��������pre-deceased daughter as the case may be;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iii) any�          property�          to�          which�          a female Hindu becomes
          ����������������          entitled by virtue of the provisions�          of�          clause
          ����������������          (i)�          shall�          be held by her with the incidents of
          ��������                    ��������coparcenary�          ownership�          and�          shall�          be�          regarded
          ����������������          notwithstanding�          anything�          contained in this Act
          ����������������          or any other law for the time being in force, as
          ����������������          property capable of being disposed of by her�          by
          ����������������will or other testamentary disposition;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iv) nothing in clause (ii) shall apply to a daughter
          ����������������          married prior to or to�          a�          partition�          which�          had
          ����������������          been�          effected�          before the commencement of Hindu
          ���                    �������������Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          Interest to devolve by survivorship on death
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �29-B��          When��          a��          female�          Hindu�          dies�          after�          the
          ����������������          commencement of�          the�          Hindu�          Succession�          (Andhra
          ������������                    ����Pradesh�          Amendment) Act, 1986 having at the time
          ����������������          of�          her�          death�          an�          interest�          in�          a��          Mitakshara
          ����������������          coparcenary��          property,��          her�          interest�          in�          the
          ����������������          property shall devolve by survivorship upon�          the
          ����                    ������������surviving�          members of the coparcenary and not in
          ����������������          accordance this Act.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Provided that if the deceased had left any
          ����������������          child or�          child�          of�          a�          pre-deceased�          child�          the
          ����������������          interest�          of�          the�          deceased�          in�          the�          Mitakshara
          ����������������          coparcenary��          property���          shall���          devolve���          by
          ����������������          testamentary or intestate succession as the case
          ����������������          may be, under this Act and not by survivorship.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �Explanation-1.-��          For��          the��          purposes�          of�          this
          ����������������          section,�          the�          interest�          of��          a��          female��          Hindu
          ����������������          Mitakshara�          coparcener shall be deemed to be the
          ����������������          share in�          the�          property�          that�          would�          have�          been
          ����������������          allotted�          to�          her if a partition of the property
          ����������������          had taken place�          immediately�          before�          her�          death
          ����������������          irrespective�          of�          whether�          she�          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,�          before�          the death of deceased, had
          ����������������          separated��          himself��          or��          herself��          from���          the
          ����������������          coparcenary�          or any of his or her heirs to claim
          ����������������          on intestacy a share in the interest referred to
          ����������������          therein.
                                       
          �������          29-C Preferential�          right�          to�          acquire��          property��          in
          ����������������          certain cases
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          (1) Where, after the commencement of the Hindu
          ����������������������          Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act,
          ����������������������          1986 an interest in any immovable property
          ����������������������          of an intestate or in any business carried
          ����������                    ������������on by him or her,�          whether�          solely�          or�          in
          ����������������������          conjunction�          with�          others�          devolves, under
          ����������������������          section 29A or section 29-B�          upon�          two�          or
          ����������������������          more�          heirs�          and�          any�          one�          of�          such heirs
          ��                    ��������������������proposes to transfer his or�          her�          interest
          ����������������������          in�          the�          property�          or�          business, the other
          ����������������������          heirs shall�          have�          preferential�          right�          to
          ����������������������          acquire��          the��          interest�          proposed�          to�          be
          ����������������������          transferred.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          (2)          ���          The�          consideration��          for��          which��          any
          ����������������������          interest�          in�          the property of the deceased
          ����������������������          may�          be�          transferred�          under�          this�          section
          ����������������������          shall�          in�          the�          absence�          of�          any agreement
          ����������������������          between the parties, be determined by�          the
          ����������������������          court,�          on application being made to it in
          ����������������������          this behalf, and if any�          person�          proposing
          �������������������                    ���to�          acquire the interest is not willing to
          ����������������������          acquire�          it�          for�          the��          consideration��          so
          ����������������������          determined, such person shall be liable to
          ����������������������          pay�          all�          costs�          of�          or incidential to the
          �����������                    �����������application.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          (3)          ���          If�          there�          are�          two�          or�          more��          heirs,
          ����������������������          proposing�          to�          acquire�          any interest under
          ����������������������          this section, that�          heir�          who�          offers�          the
          ����������������������          highest�          consideration�          for�          the�          transfer
          ����������������������          shall be preferred.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������                    �Explanation:-��          In�          this�          section�          `court'
          ����������������������          means the court within the limits of whose
          ����������������������          jurisdiction�          the�          immovable�          property�          is
          ����                    ������������������situate or the business is carried on, and
          ����������������������          includes�          any�          other court which the State
          ����������������������          Government may,�          by�          notification�          in�          the
          ����������������������          official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
                                       
                      TAMIL NADU ACTS & ORDINANCES                                                                            
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          The following Act of Andhra Pradesh�          Legislative
          �������          Assembly received the assent of the President on the 15th
          �������          January,��          1990�          and�          is�          hereby�          published�          for�          general
          �������          information.
                                       
          ��������          ACT NO.�          1 OF 1990
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �An�          Act�          further�          to�          amend the Hindu Succession
          ����������������          Act, 1956, in its application to�          the�          State�          of
          ����������������          Tamil Nadu.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �WHEREAS the Constitution of India has proclaimed
          ����������������          equality before the law as a Fundamental Right;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �AND�          WHEREAS�          the exclusion of the daughter from
          ����������������          participation in coparcenary ownership merely by
          ����������������          reason of her sex is contrary thereto;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �AND WHEREAS such exclusion of the�          daughter�          has
          ����������������          led�          to�          the creation of the socially pernicious
          ����������������          dowry system with its attendant social evils.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �AND WHEREAS this baneful system of dowry has�          to
          ����������������          be�          eradicated�          by�          positive measures which will
          ����������������          simultaneously�          ameliorate�          the�          conditions��          of
          ����������������          women in the Hindu society;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �Be�          it�          enacted�          by�          Legislative Assembly of the
          ����������������          State of Tamil Nadu in the Fortieth Year of�          the
          ����������������          Republic of India as follows:
                                       
          ��������          Short Title, Extent and Commencement
                                       
          �������                    ������          1.(1) This Act may�          be�          called�          the�          Hindu�          Succession
          ����������������          (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989
          �������                    ������          (2) It�          extends�          to�          the whole of the State of Tamil
          ����������������          Nadu
          �������                    ������          (3) It shall be deemed to have come�          into�          force�          on
          ����������������          the 25th day of March, 1989.
                                       
          �������          Insertion of new Chapter II-A
                                       
          �������                    ������          2. In�          the�          Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter
          ����������������          referred to as the Principal Act), after Chapter
          ����������������          -II, the following chapter�          shall�          be�          inserted,
          ����������������          namely:-
                                       
          ��������������������������������������������������������                    ����                                                                            
                                       
                      CHAPTER - II-A.                              
                                                                                               
                      Succession by survivorship                              
                                                                                               
                      Equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property                              
                                                                                               
          �������                    ������          29A.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section�          6
          ����������������          of this Act.
                                       
          �������                    ������          (i) 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 and have the�          same�          rights�          in
          ����������������          the�          coparcenary�          property as she would have had
          ����������������          if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to
          ����������������          claim by survivorship; and shall be�          subject�          to
          ������                    ����������the same liabilities and disabilities in respect
          ����������������          thereto as the son;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (ii) at�          a partition in such a joint Hindu Family the
          ����������������          coparcenary property shall be so divided�          as�          to
          ����������������          allot�          to�          a          �daughter�          the�          same�          share�          as�          is
          ����������������          allotable to a son.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Provided��          that��          the��          share��          which���          a
          ����������������          pre-deceased�          son�          or�          a�          pre-deceased�          daughter
          ����������������          would have got at the partition if he or she had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of the partition shall be
          ����������������          allotted�          to�          the�          surviving��          child��          of��          such
          ����������������          predeceased��          son��          or��          of��          such�          pre-deceased
          ����������������          daughter;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Provided further that the share�          allotable
          ����������������          to�          the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son
          ����������������          or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of the�          partition,�          shall
          ����������������          be�          allotted          �to�          the child of such pre-deceased
          ����������������          child�          of�          the�          pre-deceased�          son�          or��          of��          the
          ����������������          pre-deceased daughter as the case may be;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iii) any�          property�          to�          which�          a female Hindu becomes
          ����������������          entitled by virtue of the provisions�          of�          clause
          ����������������          (i)�          shall�          be held by her with the incidents of
          ����������������          coparcenary ownership�          and�          shall�          be�          regarded,
          ����������������          notwithstanding�          anything�          contained in this Act
          ����������������          or any other law for the time being in force, as
          ����������������          property capable of being disposed of by her�          by
          ����������������          will or other testamentary disposition;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iv) nothing��          in�          this�          chapter�          shall�          apply�          to�          a
          ����������������          daughter�          married�          before�          the�          commencement�          of
          ����������������          Hindu�          Succession�          (Tamil�          Nadu�          Amendment) Act,
          ����������������          1986.
                                       
          �������                    ������          (v) Nothing�          in�          clause�          (ii)�          shall�          supply�          to��          a
          ����������������          partition�          which�          had�          been�          effected before the
          ����������������          date���          of���          commencement���          of���          the���          Hindu
          ����������������          Succession(Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989.
                                       
          �������          29-B. Interest to devolve by survivorship on death
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          When��          a��          female�          Hindu�          dies�          after�          the
          ����������                    ������commencement of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu
          ����������������          Amendment) Act, 1989 having at the time�          of�          her
          ����������������          death,�          an�          interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary
          ����������������          property by virtue of the provisions of�          Section
          ��                    ��������������29-A, her 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 any
          ����������������          child�          or�          child�          of�          a�          pre-deceased child, the
          ����������������          interest�          of�          the�          deceased�          in�          the�          Mitakshara
          ����������������          coparcenary���          property���          shall���          devolve��          by
          ����������������          testamentary or�          intestate�          succession,�          as�          the
          ����������������          case��          may��          be,�          under�          this�          Act�          and�          not�          by
          ����������������          survivorship.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Explanation-I.- For the purposes of this section, the                  
          �������                    ������                    �interest of a female Hindu Mitakshara coparcener
          ����������                    ������shall be deemed to be the share in the�          property
          ����������������          that�          would�          have�          been�          allotted�          to�          her�          if a
          ����������������          partition�          of�          the�          property�          had�          taken��          place
          ����������������          immediately�          before�          her�          death, irrespective of
          ��                    ��������������whether she was entitled to claim�          partition�          or
          ����������������          not.
                                       
          ��������          Explanation II:������          Nothing contained in�          the�          proviso�          to
          �������                    ������                    �this section shall be construed�          as�          enabling�          a
          ����������������          person�          who,�          before�          the death of deceased, had
          ����������������          separated��          himself��          or��          herself��          from���          the
          ����������������          coparcenary,�          or any of his or her heir to claim
          ����������������          on intestacy a share in the interest referred to
          ����������������          therein.
                                       
          �������          29-C Preferential��          right��          to�          acquire�          property�          in
          ����������������          certain cases
                                       
          �������                    ������          (1)          ���          Where, after the commencement of the Hindu
          ����������������          Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989,�          an
          ����������������          interest��          in��          any�          immovable�          property�          of�          an
          ����������������          intestate or in any business carried on�          by�          him
          ����������������          or�          her,�          whether�          solely or in conjunction with
          ����������������          others, devolves under section�          29A�          or�          section
          ����������������          29B�          upon�          two or more heirs and any one of such
          ����������������          heirs proposes to transfer his or�          her�          interest
          ����������������          in�          the�          property�          or�          business, the other heirs
          ����������������          shall have preferential�          right�          to�          acquire�          the
          ����������������          interest proposed to be transferred.
                                       
          �������                    ������          (2)          ���          The�          consideration�          for which any interest
          ����������������          in�          the�          property�          of�          the��          deceased��          may��          be
          ����������������          transferred�          under�          this�          section�          shall, in the
          ����������������          absence of any agreement between the parties, be
          ����������������          determined by the�          court�          on�          application�          being
          ����������������          made�          to�          it�          in�          this�          behalf and if any person
          ����������������          proposing to acquire the interest is not willing
          ����������������          to�          acquire�          it��          for��          the��          consideration��          so
          ����������������          determined,�          such�          person shall be liable to pay
          ����������������          all costs of or incidential, to the application.
                                       
          �������                    ������          (3)          ���          If there are two or more�          heirs�          proposing
          ����������������          to acquire any interest under this section, that
          ����������������          heir�          who�          offers�          the highest consideration for
          ����������������          the transfer shall be preferred.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Explanation:- In this section `court' means the court                  
          �������                    ������                    �within the�          limits�          of�          whose�          jurisdiction�          the
          ����������������          immovable property is situate or the business is
          ����������������          carried�          on,�          and includes any other court which
          ����������������          the State Government may, by notification in the
          ����������������          Tamil Nadu Government Gazette�          specify�          in�          this
          ����������������          behalf.
                                       
          �������          3.����                    Certain Partitions to be null and void
                                       
          �������                    ������                    �          ������          Notwithstanding anything contained in�          the
          ����������������          principal�          Act�          or in any other law for the time
          ����������������          being in force, where on or after the�          25th�          day
          ����������������          of��          March,��          1989��          and��          before�          the�          date�          of
          ����������������          publication�          of�          the�          Act�          to�          the�          Tamil��          Nadu
          ����������������          Government�          Gazette, any partition in respect of
          ��������                    ��������coparcenary property of a Joint Hindu Family has
          ����������������          been effected�          and�          such�          partition�          is�          not�          in
          ����������������          accordance�          with the provisions of the principal
          ����������������          Act, as amended�          by�          this�          Act,�          such�          partition
          ����������������shall be deemed, to be, and to have always been,
          ����������������          null and void.������������������������������������                                                                                      
                                       

Joint Hindu Family an Affectionate Business Definition

Source: https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/kerala.htm

0 Response to "Joint Hindu Family an Affectionate Business Definition"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel