Joint Hindu Family an Affectionate Business Definition

                                       
                                       
                      Back to Law Commission Home Page                              
                                       
                      LAW COMMISSIONOF 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�������������          isso��������          pervasive
          ��������          thatit 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.
          ��������          Itseemsthatthisdiscriminationissodeepand
          ��������systematicthatithasplaced women at the receiving
          ��������          end.Recognizing this the Law Commissioninpursuance
          ��������          of its terms of reference, which, inter-alia, oblige and
          ��������          empowerittomake recommendations for the removal of
          ��������          anomalies, ambiguitiesandinequalitiesinthelaw,
          ��������          decidedtoundertakeastudyofcertain provisions
          ��������          regarding the property rights of Hindu womenunderthe
          ��������          Hindu SuccessionAct,1956.���          Thestudyis aimed at
          ��������          suggesting changes to this Actsothatwomengetan
          ��������          equal share in the ancestral property.
                                       
          ��������                    1.2          Issuing��          of��          Questionnaire��          andholdingof
          ������������          Workshop
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ���Before any amendment in thelawissuggested
          ��������          withaviewtoreform the existing law, it is proper
          ��������          that opinion is elicited by way of placing theproposed
          ��������          amendmentsbeforethe public and obtaining their views
          ��������          and ifpossiblebyholding          workshops��          etc.�����          The
          ��������          Commissionthusdecidedtohavethe widest possible
          ��������          interaction with a cross sectionofsocietyincluding
          ��������          judges,�����          lawyers,����          scholars,����          Non-governmental
          ��������          Organizations (NGO'S) etc.by issuing aquestionnaire.
          ��������          Theirviewswerealsoelicitedonseveralofthe
          ��������          provisionsintroducedbycertainStateLegislatures
          ��������          regardingtheproperty rights of Hindu women which had
          ��������          been brought about by way of an amendment totheHindu
          ��������          Succession Act,1956.���          Themainfocus/thrust of the
          ��������          questionnaire (annexed asAnnexureI)wastoelicit
          ��������          views on three issues namely:-
                                       
          ��������                    �����          i) grantingdaughterscoparcenaryrights in the
          �����������������          ancestral property; or to totallyabolishthe
          �����������������          right by birth given only to male members;
                                       
          ��������                    �����          ii) allowingdaughtersfull right of residence in
          �����������������          their parental dwelling house; and
                                       
          ��������                    �����          iii) restricting the power of a persontobequeath
          �����������������          propertybywayoftestamentary disposition
          �����������������          extendingtoone-halforone-thirdofthe
          �����������������          property.
                                       
          ��������                    1.2.1                    The Commission received replies in responseto
          ��������          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 intenseinteraction
          ��������          theLawCommission          in collaboration with the ILS, Law
          ��������          College and Vaikunthrao Dempo Trust of Goa, organiseda
          ��������          twodayworkshopon"PropertyRights of Hindu Women
          ��������          proposed Reforms" in Pune on 28-29August,1999.���          At
          ��������          thisWorkshoptheChairmanandmembersofthe Law
          ��������          Commissionhelddetaileddiscussions��          with��          eminent
          ��������          lawyers and NGO'S and teachers of ILS Law College, Pune.
          ��������          A Working Paper on Coparcenary Rights to Daughters Under
          ��������          Hindu Lawalong with a draft bill was circulated.This
          ��������          is annexed as Annexure-III.
                                       
          ��������                    1.2.3                    The Law Commission has carefully considered all
          ��������          therepliesand the discussion at the workshop at Pune
          ��������          before formulatingitsrecommendationstoamendthe
          ��������          HinduSuccessionAct,1956with a view to giving the
          ��������          Hindu women, an equal right to succeed to theancestral
          ��������          property.
          ��������                  
          ����          ���                    ��          1.3          The Background
          ��������                    �������������          Sincetimeimmemorialthe          framingof��          all
          ��������          propertylawshave been exclusively for the benefit of
          ��������          man, and woman hasbeentreatedassubservient,and
          ��������          dependent onmalesupport.���          The right to property is
          ��������          important for the freedom and          developmentofahuman
          ��������          being.��          Priorto the Act of 1956, Hindus were governed
          ��������          by Shastric and Customary laws which varied fromregion
          ��������          toregion and sometimes it varied in the same region on
          ��������          a castebasis.����          As��          the��          country��          is��          vast��          and
          ��������          communicationsand social interactions in the past were
          ��������          difficult,itledtoa��          diversity��          in��          the��          law.
          ��������          Consequentlyinmatters of succession also, there were
          ��������          different schools, likeDayabhagainBengalandthe
          ��������          adjoiningareas;Mayukha in Bombay, Konkan and Gujarat
          ��������          and Marumakkattayam or Nambudri in Kerala and Mitakshara
          ��������          in other parts of India withslightvariations.���          The
          ��������multiplicityofsuccessionlawsin India, diverse in
          ��������          their nature, owing totheirvariedoriginmadethe
          ��������          property laws even mere complex.
                                       
          ��������                    1.3.1.          A woman in ajointHindufamily,consisting
          ��������          bothof          manand woman, had a right to sustenance, but
          ��������          the control and ownership of property didnotvestin
          ��������          her.��          Inapatrilinealsystem,likethe Mitakshara
          ��������          school of Hindu law, a woman,wasnotgivenabirth
          ��������          right in the family property like a son.
                                       
          ��������                    1.3.2                    UndertheMitaksharalaw,on birth, the son
          ��������          acquires a right and interest inthefamilyproperty.
          ��������          Accordingtothisschool, a son, grandson and a great
          ��������          grandson constitute a classofcoparcenars,basedon
          ��������          birth inthefamily.���          Nofemaleis a member of the
          ��������          coparcenary in Mitakshara law.���          UndertheMitakshara
          ��������          system,jointfamily property devolves by survivorship
          ��������          within the coparcenary.��          Thismeansthatwithevery
          ��������          birthordeathofa male in the family, the share of
          ��������          every other surviving maleeithergetsdiminishedor
          ��������          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 inthefamily,automaticallythe
          ��������          share of each male is reduced to one fourth.
                                       
          ��������                    1.3.3                    The Mitakshara law also recognisesinheritance
          ��������          bysuccession but only to the property separately owned
          ��������          by an individual, male or female.Females areincluded
          ��������          asheirstothiskind of property by Mitakshara law.
          ��������          Before the HinduLawofInheritance(Amendment)Act
                    �������1929,theBengal,Benaresand Mithila sub schools of
          ��������          Mitakshara recognisedonlyfivefemalerelationsas
          ��������          beingentitledtoinheritnamely- widow, daughter,
          ��������          mother paternal grandmother,andpaternalgreat-grand
          ��������          mother.1The Madras sub-school recognised the heritable
          ��������          capacity of a larger number of females heirs that isof
          ��������          theson's daughter, daughter's daughter and the sister,
          ��������          as heirs who are expressly named as heirs inHinduLaw
          ��������          of Inheritance (Amendment) Act,1929.2 The son's daughter
          ��������          andthe daughter's daughter ranked as bandhus in Bombay
          ��������          and Madras.The Bombay school which is most liberalto
          ��������          women,recognisedanunmberof          otherfemale heirs,
          ��������          including ahalfsister,father'ssisterandwomen
          ��������          married into the family such as stepmother, son's widow,
          ��������          brother'swidowand also many other females classified
          ��������          as bandhus.
                                       
          ��������                    1.3.4                    The Dayabhaga school neither accords a right by
          ��������          birth nor by survivorshipthoughajointfamilyand
          ��������          joint propertyisrecognised.���          It lays down only one
          ��������          mode of succession and thesamerulesofinheritance
          ��������          applywhetherthefamilyis divided or undivided and
          ��������          whether thepropertyisancestralorself-acquired.
          ��������          Neithersonsnor daughters become coparceners at birth
          ��������          nor do they have rights in thefamilypropertyduring
          ��������their father'slifetime.However, on his death, they
          ��������          inherit as tenants-in-common.It is anotablefeature
          ��������          oftheDayabhagaSchoolthatthe daughters also get
          ��������          equal sharesalongwiththeirbrothers.���          Sincethis
          ��������          ownershiparises only on the extinction of the father's
          ��������          ownershipnoneofthemcancompelthefather��          to
          ��������          partition the property in his lifetime and the latter is
          ��������          free to give or sell the property without their consent.
          ��������          Therefore,undertheDayabhaga law, succession rather
          ��������          than survivorship is the rule.If one of the male heirs
          ��������          dies, his heirs, including females such as his wifeand
          ��������          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
          ��������          managethepropertyon behalf of the other members in
          ��������          the Dayabhaga School.
                                       
          ��                    ������          1.3.5                    Inthe Marumakkattayam law, which prevailed in
          ��������          Keralawhereinthefamilywasjoint,a��          household
          ��������          consistedofthemotherandher children with joint
          ��������          rights in property.The lineage was traced throughthe
          ��������          female line.��          Daughters and their children were thus an
          ��������          integral part ofthehouseholdandoftheproperty
          ��������          ownership as the family was matrilineal.
                                       
          ��������                    1.4          ��          However, during the British regime, the country
          ��������          became politicallyandsociallyintegrated,butthe
          ��������          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��          ofameliorationofthewoman'spositionin
          ��������          society.The earliest legislation bringing females into
          ��������          theschemeofinheritanceisthe��          Hindu��          Law��          of
          ��������          Inheritance Act,1929.This Act, conferred inheritance
          ��������          rights on threefemaleheirsi.e.���          son'sdaughter,
          ��������          daughter'sdaughterandsister(therebycreatinga
          ��������          limitedrestrictionontheruleof��          survivorship).
          ��������          Another landmark legislation conferring ownership rights
          ��������          onwomanwastheHindu Women's Right to Property Act
          ��������          (XVIII of ) 1937.This Act brought aboutrevolutionary
          ��������          changesintheHinduLaw of all schools, and brought
          ��������          changes not only in the law of coparcenary butalsoin
          ��������          the��          law��          of��          partition,��          alienation��          ofproperty,
          ��������          inheritance and adoption.3
                                       
          ��������                    1.4.1                    The Act of 1937 enabled thewidowtosucceed
          ��������          alongwith the son and to take a share equal to that of
          ��������the son.But, the widow didnotbecomeacoparcener
          ��������          eventhough she possessed a right akin to a coparcenary
          ��������          interest in the property and was a member ofthejoint
          ��������          family.The widow was entitled only to a limited estate
          ��������          inthepropertyof the deceased with a right to claim
          ��������          partition.4 Adaughterhadvirtuallynoinheritance
          ��������          rights.���          Despite��          these��          enactmentshavingbrought
          ��������          important changes in the law of succession by conferring
          ��������          new rights of succession on certain females, thesewere
          ��������          stillfoundtobeincoherentanddefective in many
          ��������          respects and gave rise to a number of anomalies and left
          ��������untouched the basic features ofdiscriminationagainst
          ��������          women.These enactments now stand repealed.
                                       
          ��������                    1.5          ��          TheframersoftheIndian Constitution took
          ��������          note of the adverse and discrimnatory position ofwomen
          ��������          insocietyandtookspecialcare to ensure that the
          ��������          State took positive stepstogiveherequalstatus.
          ��������          Articles 14, 15(2) and (3) and 16 of the Constitution of
          ��������          India,thusnotonlyinhibitdiscrimination against
          ��������women but in appropriate circumstancesprovideafree
          ��������          handtothe State to provide protective discrimination
          ��������          in favour of women.These provisions arepartofthe
          ��������          Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.Part
          ��������          IV of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles
          ��������          whichareno less fundamental in the governance of the
          ��������          State and inter-alia also provide that theStateshall
          ��������          endeavourtoensureequalitybetweenman and woman.
          ��������          Notwithstanding���          these���          constitutional����          mandates/
          ��������          directivesgivenmore than fifty years ago, a woman is
          ��������          still neglected in her own natal family aswellasin
          ��������          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,��          thethenPrime
          ��������          Minister of India expressed hisunequivocalcommitment
          ��������          tocarryoutreformstoremovethe disparities and
          ��������          disabilities suffered by Hindu women.As a consequence,
          ��������          despite the resistance of the orthodoxsectionofthe
          ��������          Hindus,theHindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted and
          ��������came into force on 17th June, 1956.It appliestoall
          ��������          the HindusincludingBuddhists,Jainsand Sikhs.It
          ��������          laysdownauniformandcomprehensive��          system��          of
          ��������          inheritanceandappliesto those governed both by the
          ��������          Mitakshara and the Dayabahaga Schools and also tothose
          ��������          inSouthIndiagovernedbythe the Murumakkattayam,
          ��������          Aliyasantana, Nambudri and other systems ofHinduLaw.
          ��������          Manychangeswerebroughtabout giving women greater
          ��������          rights, yet in section 6 the Mitakshara Coparcenarywas
          ��������          retained.
                                       
          ��������                    1.6          ��          TheLawCommissionisconcernedwith��          the
          ��������          discriminationinherentinthe Mitakshara coparcenary
          ��������          under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as itonly
          ��������          consists of male members.The Commission in this regard
          ��������          ascertained the opinion of a cross section of society in
          ��������          ordertofindout, whether the Mitakshara coparcenary
          ��������          should be retained as provided in section 6 of the Hindu
          ��������          Succession Act, 1956, orinanalteredform,orit
          ��������          should betotally abolished.The Commission's main aim
          ��������          is to end gender discriminationwhichisapparentin
          ��������          section��          6��          of��          theHinduSuccessionAct,1956,by
          ��������          suggesting��          appropriate��          amendments��          to��          the���          Act.
          ��������          Accordingly, in the next two chapters of this report the
          ��������          Commissionhasmadea broad study of section 6 of the
          ���                    �����Hindu Succession Act, 1956,andtheHinduSuccession
          ��������          State(Amendment)ActsofAndhra Pradesh (1986), Tamil
          ��������          Nadu(1989), Maharashtra(1994)andKarnataka(1994)and
          ��������          theKeralaJointFamily 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,Treatiseon Hindu Law & Usage, (1996
          �����������������          14th Edition,ed.���          by��          Alladi��          Kuppuswami)
          �����������������          p.1065.
                                       
          ��������          4.���                    M.Indira Devi, "Woman'sAssertionofLegal
          �����������������          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 RighttoPropertyAct,
          �����������������          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
          ��������          successionamongHinduscame into force on 17th June,
          ��������          1956.This Act brought aboutchangesinthelawof
          ��������          successionand gave rights which were hitherto unknown,
          ��������          in relation to a woman's property.However, it didnot
          ��������          interferewiththespecialrightsofthose who are
          ��������members of a Mitakshara coparcenaryexcepttoprovide
          ��������          rulesfordevolutionof the interest of a deceased in
          ��������          certain cases.���          TheActlaysdownauniform��          and
          ��������          comprehensive��          system��          of��          inheritanceandapplies,
          ��������          inter-alia,topersonsgovernedbyMitakshara��          and
          ��������          DayabhagaSchoolsas also to those in certain parts of
          ��������          southern Indiawhowerepreviouslygovernedbythe
          ��������          Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri Systems.The
          ��������          Actapplies to any person who is a Hindu by religion in
          ��������          any of its forms or develpments including aVirashaiva,
          ��������          a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo Prarthana or Arya
          ��������          Samaj; or to any person who is Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by
          ��������          religion;toanyotherpersonwhois not a Muslim,
          ��������          Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion aspersection2.
          ��������          Inthe case of a testamentary disposition this Act does
          ��������          not apply and the interest of the deceasedisgoverned
          ��������          by the Indian Succesion Act, 1925.
                                       
          ��������                    2.2          ��          Section 4 of the Act is of importance and gives
          ��������          overriding��          effect��          to��          theprovisionsoftheAct
          ��������          abrogatingtherebyalltherulesofthe��          Law��          of
          ��������          successionhithertoapplicabletoHinduswhether by
          ��������          virtue of any text or rule of Hindu law or any custom or
          ��������          usage having theforceoflaws,inrespectofall
          ��������          matters dealtwithintheAct.The HSA reformed the
          ��������          Hindu personal law and gaveawomangreaterproperty
          ��������          rights,allowingherfull ownership rights instead of
          ��������          limitedrightsinthepropertysheinheritsunder
          ��������          Section 14 with a fresh stock of heirs under sections 15
          ��������          and 16oftheAct.���          The daughters were also granted
          ��������          property rights in their father's estate.In the matter
          ��������          of succession to the propertyofaHindumaledying
          ��������          intestate,theAct 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 thecommencement
          �����������������          of this Act, having at the time of his death an
          �����������������          interestin a Mitakshara coparcenary property,
          �����������������          his interest in the property shalldevolveby
          ����������������                    survivorshipupon the surviving members of the
          �����������������          coparcenary and notinaccordancewiththis
          �����������������          Act:
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ���Providedthat,ifthedeceased had left him
          �����������������          surviving a female relative specified inClass
          �����������������          Iof the Schedule or a male relative specified
          �����������������          in that class who claimsthroughsuchfemale
          �����������������          relative,theinterest of the deceased in the
          ���������                    ��������Mitakshara Coparcenary propertyshalldevlove
          �����������������          by testamentary or intestate succession, as the
          �����������������          case��          maybe,underthisActandnotby
          �����������������          survivorship.
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ���Explanation1.-For          thepurposesof��          this
          �����������������          section,theinterestofa Hindu Mitakshara
          �����������������          coparcener shall be deemed to be thesharein
          �����������������          thepropertythat would have been allotted to
          �����������������          him if a partition of thepropertyhadtaken
          �����������������          place���          immediately���          before���          his���          death,
          �����������������          irrespective ofwhetherhewasentitledto
          �����������������          claim partition or not.
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ���Explanation��          2,--Nothingcontainedinthe
          �����������������          proviso to his section shallbeconstruedas
          �����������������          enablingapersonwhohas separated himself
          �����������������          from the coparcenary before thedeathofthe
          �����������������          deceasedoranyofhisheirstoclaim on
          �����������������          intestacy a share in the interestreferredto
          �����������������          therein.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.1                    Beforethecommencement of the HSA, codifying
          ��������          the rules of succession, the concept of aHindufamily
          ��������          under��          Mitakshara��          schooloflawwasthatitwas
          ��������          ordinarily joint not only inestatebutinreligious
          ��������          matters as���          well.�������          Coparcenary���          property,��          in
          ��������          contradistinction with the absolute or separate property
          ��������of an individualcoparcenar,devolveduponsurviving
          ��������          coparcenersinthefamily,accordingto the rule of
          ��������          devolution by survivorship.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.2          ��������          Section 6 dealing with thedevolutionof
          ��������          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 therulein the proviso.According to the proviso,
          ��������          if the deceased has left him surviving a female relative
          ��������          specified in Class I of Schedule I, or amalerelative
          ��������          specifiedinthat Class who claims through such female
          ��������          relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara
          ��������          coparcenary property shall devolvebytestamentaryor
          ��������          intestate��          succession��          under��          thisActandnotby
          ��������          survivorship.Further, under section30acoparcener
          ��������          maymakeatestamentarydisposition of his undivided
          ���                    �����interest in the Joint family property.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.3                    Theruleof survivorship comes into operation
          ��������          only:-(1)wherethedeceaseddoesnotleavehim
          ��������          survivingafemale relative specified in Class I, or a
          ��������          male relative specified in that Class who claims through
          ��������          such female relative and , (ii) whenthedeceasedhas
          ��������          notmadeatestamentarydisposition of his undivided
          ��������          share in the coparcenary property.The Schedule tothe
          ��������ActreadwithSection 8 provides the following twelve
          ��������          relations as Class I heirs son; daughter; widow; mother;
          ��������          son of a pre-deceased son; daughterofapre-deceased
          ��������          son;��          sonofpre-deceaseddaughter;daughter          ofa
          ��������          pre-deceased daughter, widow of a pre-deceased son;son
          ��������          ofpre-deceasedson of a pre-deceased son; daughter of
          ��������          pre-deceasedsonofapre-deceasedson;widow��          of
          ��������          pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son.
                                       
                      ��������2.3.4                    Section6contemplates��          the��          existence��          of
          ��������          coparcenarypropertyandmore than one coparcener for
          ��������          theapplicationof��          the��          rule��          of��          devolution��          by
          ��������          survivorship.��          Theheadnoteofthesectionreads
          ��������          "Devolution of interest in coparcenary property".���          The
          ��������          languageofthe main provision to the effect that "his
          ��������          interest in the property shall devolvebysurvivorship
          ��������          upon��          the��          surviving��          members"��          indicatesthatthe
          ��������          devolution by survivorshipiswithreferencetothe
          ��������          deceasedcoparcener's interest alone; this coupled with
          ��������          the notional partition contemplated in Explanation 1in
          ��������          thissectionforthe ascertainment of the interest of
          ��������          the deceasedcoparcenerinaMitaksharacoparcenary
          ��������          propertyindicatesthatthere is no disruption of the
          ��������          entire coparcenary.���          It��          follows��          that��          the��          other
          ��������          coparceners,wouldcontinueto be joint in respect of
          ��������          the othercoparcenarypropertytillapartitionis
          ��������          effected.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.5                    Ithas already been pointed out above that the
          ��������          main provision of this section deals with the devolution
          ��������          of the interest of a coparcener dying intestatebythe
          ��������          ruleofsurvivorshipandtheprovisospeaks of the
          ��������          interest of the deceased in theMitaksharaCoparcenary
          ��������          Property.��          Now,inordertoascertainwhatis the
          ��������interest of thedeceasedcoparcener,onenecessarily
          ��������          needstokeepinmind the two Explanations under the
          ��������          proviso.ThesetwoExplanationsgivethenecessary
          ��������          assistance for ascertaining the interest of the deceased
          ��������          coparcener��          intheMitaksharaCoparcenaryProperty.
          ��������          Explanation I provides for ascertaining the intereston
          ��������          thebasis of a notional partition by applying a fiction
          ��������          asifthe partition had taken place immediately before
          ��������          the death of the deceased coparcener.���          ExplanationII
          ��������          laysdownthat a person who has separated himself from
          ��������          the coparcenary before the death of the deceased orany
          ��������          ofthe heirs of such divided coparcener is not entitled
          ��������          to claim on intestacy a share in theinterestreferred
          ��������          to in the section.
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.6                    Under the proviso if a female relative in class
          ��������          I of the schedule oramalerelativeinthatclass
          ��������          claimingthroughsuchfemalerelativesurvivesthe
          ��������          deceased, then only would the question ofclaiminghis
          ��������          interest bysuccession arise.Explanation I to section
          ��������          6 was interpreted differentlybytheHighCourtsof
          ��������Bombay,Delhi,Orissaand Gujarat in the cases1 where
          ��������          the female relative happened to be a wife or themother
          ��������          living atthetime of the death of the coparcener.It
          ��������          is now not necessarytodiscussthismatterasthe
          ��������          controversy has been finally set at rest by the decision
          ��������          of theSupremeCourtin 1978 in Gurupad v.Heerabai2
          ��������          and reiterated later in 1994 in Shyama Deviv.���          Manju
          ��������          Shukla3whereinithasbeen held that the proviso to
          ��������          section 6 gives the formula for fixing the share ofthe
          ��������          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:
                                       
          ��������                    �������������          "Inordertoascertain the share of heirs in
          ��������          the property of a deceased coparcener it is necessary in
          ��������          the very nature of things, and as the veryfirststep,
          ��������          to��          ascertain��          the��          shareofthedeceasedinthe
          ��������          coparcenary property.For, by doing that alone onecan
          ��������determine��          the��          extent��          of��          the��          claimant'sshare.
          ��������          Explanation ItoSection6resortstothesimple,
          ��������          expedient,undoubtedlya fictional partition, that the
          ��������          interest of aHinduMitaksharacoparcener"shallbe
          ��������          deemedto be" the share in the property that would have
          ��������          been allotted to him if a partition of that property had
          ��������          taken place immediately beforehisdeath.���          Whatis,
          ��������          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 propertyonecannot
          ��������          gobackonthat assumption and ascertain the share of
          ��������          the heirs withoutreferencetoit........���          Allthe
          ��������          consequenceswhichflow from real partition have to be
          ��������          logically worked out, which means that the share ofthe
          ��������          heirsmustbeascertainedon the basis that they had
          ��������          separated from one another and had received asharein
          ��������          thepartition which had taken place during the lifetime
          ��������          of the deceased.The allotment of this share isnota
          ��������          processualstepdevisedmerelyforthepurposeof
          ��������          working out some other conclusion.It has to be treated
          ��������          and acceptedasaconcretereality,somethingthat
          ��������          cannotberecalledjustasashareallottedto a
          ��������          coparcener in an actual partitioncannotgenerallybe
          ��������          recalled.��          The inevitable corollary of this position is
          ��������          that the heir will get his or her share in theinterest
          ��������          whichthedeceasedhad in the coparcenary property at
          ��������          the time of his death, in addition to the share which he
          ��������          or she received or must be deemed tohavereceivedin
          ��������          the notional partition."4
                                       
          ��������                    2.3.8                    Again in State of Maharashtra V.NarayanRao5
          ��������          theSupremeCourt carefully considered the decision in
          ��������          Gurupad's case and pointed out that "Gurupad's casehas
          ��������          tobetreatedas an authority (only) for the position
          ��������          that when a female member who inheritsaninterestin
          ��������          joint family property under section 6 of the Act files a
          ��������          suitfor partition expressing her willingness to go out
          ��������          of the family she would be entitled to both the interest
          ��������          she has inherited and the share whichwouldhavebeen
          ��������          notionallyallottedto her, as stated in Explanation I
          ������                    ��to section 6 of the Act.But it cannot be anauthority
          ��������          forthepropositionthat she ceases to be a member of
          ��������          the family on the death of a male member ofthefamily
          ��������          whose interest in the family property devolves on her
                    �������withoutthevolitiontoseparateherselffromthe
          ��������          family.A legal fiction should no doubtordinarilybe
          ��������          carried to its logical end to carry out the purposes for
          ��������          whichitisenactedbutit cannot be carried beyond
          ��������          that.It is no doubt true that the rightofafemale
          ��������          heirtotheinterestinheritedby her in the family
          ��������          property gets fixed on the date of the death ofamale
          ��������          memberundersection6ofthe Act but she cannot be
          ��������          treated as having ceased to be a memberofthefamily
          ��������          withouthervolitionasotherwiseitwilllead to
          ��������          strangeresultswhichcouldnothavebeeninthe
          ��������          contemplation��          of��          Parliamentwhenitenactedthat
          ��������          provision and which might also not be in the interest of
          ��������          such females."
                                       
          ��������                    2.4          Inequalities and Anomalies Discriminating Women
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ���Despite the Constitution guaranteeingequality
          ��������          to women, there are still many discriminatory aspects in
          ��������          the Hindulaw 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 thereis
          ��������          discriminatorytreatmentgiventoherevenbythe
          ��������          members of her own natal family.
                                       
                      ��������            2.4.1                    In the Hindusystem,ancestralpropertyhas
          ��������          traditionally��          been��          heldbyajointHindufamily
          ��������          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.Acoparcenarycan
          ��������          also be of a grandfather and a grandson, or of brothers,
          ��������          or anuncleandnephewandsoon.��          Thus ancestral
          ��������          propertycontinuestobe��          governed��          by��          a��          wholly
          ��                    ������partrilinealregime,whereinpropertydescendsonly
          ��������          through the male line as onlythemalemembersofa
          ��������          jointHindufamilyhaveaninterest by birth in the
          ��������          joint or coparcenary property.Since a woman could          not
          ��������          bea coparcener, she was not entitled to a share in the
          ��������          ancestral property by birth.���          Ason'sshareinthe
          ��������          propertyincase the father dies intestate would be in
          ��������          addition to the share he has on birth.
                                       
                      ���                        �����2.5          ����������          Again,thepatrilinealassumptions of a
          ��������          dominant male ideology is clearly reflected in thelaws
          ��������          governing a Hindu female who dies intestate.The law in
          ��������          hercaseinmarkedlydifferentfrom those governing
          ����                    ����Hindu males.The property is to devolvefirsttoher
          ��������          children and husband:secondly, to her husband's heirs;
          ��������          thirdlytoherfather'sheirs,andlastly,to her
          ��������          mother's heirs.6 The provision of section 15(2)ofHSA
          ��������          isindicativeagainofa tilt towards the male as it
          ��������          provides that any property she inherited from her father
          ��������          ormothershoulddevolve,intheabsenceof��          any
          ��������          children,toherfather'sheirsandsimilarly, any
          ��������          property��          she��          inherited��          from��          her���          husband���          or
          ��������          father-in-law, to her husband's heirs.These provisions
          ��������          depictthatproperty continues to be inherited through
          ��������          the male line from which itcameeitherbacktoher
          ��������          father's family or back to her husband's family.
                                       
          ��������                    2.6          ��          Thequestionis whether, the Hindu Succession
          ��������          Act actually gave women an equal righttopropertyor
          ��������          did itonlyprofesstodoso?���          Significantly, the
          ��������          provisions regarding succession in the Hindu CodeBill,
          ��������          asoriginallyframedbytheB.N.RauCommitteeand
          ��������          pilotedbyDr.Ambedkar,��          was��          for��          abolishing��          the
          ��������          Mitaksharacoparcenary with its concept of survivorship
          ��������          and the son's right by birth in a joint familyproperty
          ��������          and substituting it with the principle of inheritance by
          ��������          succession.���          Theseproposalsmetwithastormof
          ��������          conservative opposition.          ��Theextentof��          opposition
          ��������          within the Congress or the then government itself can be
          ��������          gauged��          fromthefactthatthethenLawMinister
          ��������          Mr.Biswas, on the floor of the house, expressedhimself
          ��������          againstdaughtersinheriting property from their natal
          ��������          families.SitaRamS.���          JajoofromMadhyaBharat,
          ��������          identifiedthereasonforthe resistance accurately,
          ��������          when he stated:"Here wefeelthepinchbecauseit
          ��������          touches ourpockets.We male members of this house are
          ��������          in a huge majority.I do not wish that thetyrannyof
          ��������          themajority may be imposed on the minority, the female
          ��������          members of this house."7 However,thetyrannyofthe
          ��������          majorityprevailedwhen the Bill was finally passed in
          ��������          1956.The major changes brought were:-
          ��������                    �����          (1) Retention of theMitaksharacoparcenarywith
          �����������������          only males as coparceners;
          ��������                    �����          (2) Coparcener's right to will away his interest in
          �����������������          the joint family property.(This provision was
          �����������������          unexpectedlyintroduced by an amendment by the
          �����������������          then Law Minister Mr.Pataskarinthefinal
          �����������������          stagesof the clause-by-clause debate when the
          �����������������          bill was to be passed, in 1956.It waswidely
          �����������������          perceived��          and��          pro-claimed,��          even��          inthe
          �����������������          contemporary press, tobeacapitulationby
          �����������������          government.);
          ��������          �����          (3) RemovalofexemptionofMarumakkattayam and
          �����������������          Aliyasantanacommunities;thatis,��          virtual
          �����������������          destructionof the only systems in which women
          �����������������          were the equivalent of full coparceners; and
          ��������                    �����          (4) Alterationoforiginal��          provision��          that��          a
          �����������������          daughterwouldget a share equivalent to half
          �����������������          the share of a son in self-acquired property of
          �����������������          the fatherwhodiedintestate.8TheSelect
          �����������������          Committeedecidedtomake her share full and
          �����������������          equal to that of a son.
          ��������                    2.7          ��          When Dr.Ambedkar was questioned as to howthis
          ��������          happened in the Select Committee he said:"It was not a
          ��������          compromise.��          Myenemiescombined with my enthusiastic
          ��������          supporters and my enemies thought that theymightdamn
          ��������          the Bill by making it appear worse than it was.9
                                       
          ��������                    2.8          ��          The retentionoftheMitaksharacoparcenary
          ��������          withoutincludingfemales in it meant that females can
          ��������          not inherit ancestral property as males do.If ajoint
          ��������          familygetsdivided,eachmalecoparcener takes his
          ��������          share and females get nothing.Onlywhenoneofthe
          ����                    ����coparcenersdies, a female gets a share of his share as
          ��������          an heir to the deceased.Thus the law by excludingthe
          ��������          daughtersfromparticipatingin coparcenary ownership
          ��������          (merely by reason of their sex) not only contributedto
          ��������          aninequityagainstfemales but has led to oppression
          ��������          and negation of their right to equality andappearsto
          ��������          be a mockery of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
          ��������          Constitution.
                                       
          ��������                    2.9          ��          Anotherapparent          inequityunderthe��          Hindu
          ��������          SuccessionActasperSection23,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 daughtertheright
          ��������          todemandhersharein 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 primacyof
          ��������          therightsof the family against that of an individual
          ��������          by imposing a restriction on partition.Why is itthat
          ��������          thisrightofprimacy of family is considered only in
          ��������          the case of a female member of the family?
                                       
          ��������                    2.10          TheNationalreport 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,theSupremeCourtbyits��          recent
          ��������          judgment in Narashimaha Murthyv.���          Sushilabai11held
          ��������          thatafemaleheir'sright to claim partition of the
          ��������          dwelling house of a Hindu dying intestate undersection
          ��������          23oftheHSAwillbedeferred or kept in abeyance
          ��������          during the lifetime of even a sole survivingmaleheir
          ��������          ofthedeceased until he chooses to separate his share
          ��������          or ceases to occupy it or lets it out.The idea of this
          ��������          sectionbeingto��          prevent��          the��          fragmentation��          and
          ��������          disintegrationof the dwelling house at the instance of
          ��������          the female heirs to the detriment of the maleheirsin
          ��������          occupation ofthehouse.thus rendering the male heir
          ��������          homeless/shelterless.
                                       
          ��������                    2.12          Asimilarinstance of inequity created by law
          ��������          was the establishment of thenewrighttowillaway
          ��������          property.��          TheAct gave a weapon to a man to deprive a
          ��������          woman oftherightssheearlierhadundercertain
          ��������          schools ofHinduLaw.���          Thelegal right of Hindus to
          ��������          bequeath property by way of will wasconferredbythe
          ��������          Indian SuccessionAct,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, whichhecould
          ��������          not havealienatedby gift inter- vivos.A coparcener
          ��������          under Dayabhaga law, however, could by giftdisposeof
          ��������          the��          whole��          of��          hispropertywhetherancestralor
          ��������          self-acquired, subject to the claims ofthoseentitled
          ��������          to bemaintainedbyhim.However, a coparcener under
          ��������          Mitaksharalawhadnopowerto��          dispose          ��of��          his
          ��������          coparcenaryinterest by gift or bequest so as to defeat
          ��������          the right of the other members.The coparcenarysystem
          ��������          evenrestrictedtherightsofthe Karta to alienate
          ��������          property, thereby safeguarding the rights of all members
          ��������          of the family including infants andchildrentobeing
          ��������          maintained from the joint family property.
                                       
          ��������                    2.14          Althoughmanypowers were vested in the karta
          ��������          ormaleheadofthefamily,whowassupposedto
          ��������          administer the property in the interests of all members,
          ��������          yetdecisions regarding disposal of the family property
          ��������          were to be taken collectively.Each male hadanequal
          ��������          share in the property, but the expenditure was not to be
          ��������          apportioned onlytomalesbutalsoto 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 tothesaidsection
          ��������          anyHindumay dispose of by will or other testamentary
          ��������          disposition any property capableofdisposition(this
          ��������          includes��          his��          undivided��          interestinaMitakshara
          ��������          coparcenarypropertyasper��          the��          Explanation)��          in
          ��������          accordancewith the provisions of the Indian Succession
          ��������          Act, 1925.This is ironical as this testamentaryright
          ��������          right of his daughter by succession.It can also defeat
          ��������          a widow'sright.���          Thereisthus a diminution in the
          ��������          status of a wife/widow.
                                       
          ��������                    2.15          According to Muslim law a person isrestrained
          ��������          from givingaway 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 amongtheagnaticandKoranic
          ��������          heirs.��          Aperson is, of course, not required to make a
          ��������          will.
                                       
          ��������                    2.16          Theprovisoto section 6 of HSA also contains
          ��������          another gender bias.It has been provided thereinthat
          ��������          the��          interest��          of��          thedeceasedintheMitakshara
          ��������          Coparcenary shall devolve by intestate succession if the
          ��������          deceased had left surviving a female relativespecified
          ��������          in class I of the Schedule or a male relative" specified
          ��������          inthat class, who claims through such female relative.
          ��������          In order to appreciate the gender bias itisnecessary
          ��������          toseethe devolution of interest under section 8 HSA.
          ��������          The property of a male Hindudyingintestatedevolves
          ��������          accordingtosection8of the HSA, firstly, upon the
          ��������          heirs being the relatives specified in classIofthe
          ��������          Schedule.However, there are only four primary heirs in
          ��������theSchedule to class I, namely, mother, widow, son and
          ��������          daughter.The remaining eight represent one oranother
          ��������          personwhowould have been a primary heir if he or she
          ��������          had not died before the propositus.��          Theprincipleof
          ��������          representationgoesup to two degrees in the male line
          ��������          of descent; but in the female line ofdescentitgoes
          ��������          only uptoone degree.Accordingly, the son's son's son
          ��������          and son's son's daughter get a sharebut          adaughter'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 daughterorgrand-daughterare
          ��������          not heirs.12
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
          ���������                                FOOT NOTES                              
                                       
          ��������          1.�����������          See Shiramabai v Kolgonda, 1964 Bom.263;
          ��������                    �������������          Kanahaya Lal v Jamna, 1973 Delhi 160;
          ��������                    �����                    ��������Rangubai Lalji v LakshmanLalJi,1966Bom.
          ���������������                    �������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.���                    �������          RatnaKapoorandBrendaCossman,��          Feminist
          �����������������������          Engagements��          withlawinIndia,Subversive
          �����������������������          sites, 1996, p.134
                                       
          ��������          7.���                    �������          The����          Constituent���          Assembly���          of���          India,
          ����������������������          (Legislative) Debates Vol.VI 1949 Part II,
                                       
                                       
          ��������          8.�����������          MadhuKiswar,"CodifiedHinduLawMyth 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,ASynopsisofthe
          ����������������������          ReportoftheNationalCommittee(1971-74)
          ����������������������          p.53-54
                                       
          ��������          11.��                    �������          AIR 1996 SC, 1826.
                                       
          ��������          12.����������          Dr.��          TahirMahmoodHindu Law, (1986; 2nd ed)
          ��������������                    ��������p.57.
                                       
                                       
          �����������������������������������������������������������                  
          ���������������������������������������������������������������                                                                            
                      CHAPTER - III                                                                            
                                                                                               
                      COPARCENARY:RELEVANCE AND ALTERNATIVES                  
                                       
                      ��������            3.1          ��          It is apparent from the study oftheprevious
          ��������          chapterthatdiscriminationagainstawoman is writ
          ��������          large in relation to property rights.���          Socialjustice
          ��������          demandsthata woman should be treated equally both in
          ��������          the economic and the social sphere.��          Theexclusionof
          ��������          daughtersfromparticipatingincoparcenary property
          ��������          ownership merely byreasonoftheirsexisunjust.
          �����                    ���Improvingtheir economic condition and social status by
          ��������          giving equal rights by birth is a long felt social need.
          ��������          Undoubtedly a radical reform of theMitaksharalawof
          ��������          coparcenaryisneeded to provide equal distribution of
          ��������          property notonlywithrespecttotheseparateor
          ��������          self-acquiredproperty of the deceased male but also in
          ��������          respect of his undividedinterestinthecoparcenary
          ��������          property.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2          The New Coparcenary under State Acts :(ANDHRA
          �����������������          MODEL)
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    ��The idea of making awomanacoparcenerwas
          ��������          suggested��          asearlyas1945inwrittenstatements
          ��������          submitted to the Hindu LawCommitteebyanumberof
          ��������          individualsandgroups;andagainin 1956, when the
          ��������          Hindu Succession Bill was being finally debated prior to
          ��������          its enactment an amendment was moved to make adaughter
          ��������          and her children members of the Hindu coparcenary in the
          ��������same way as a son or his children.But this progressive
          ��������          ideawasfinallyrejectedandtheMitakshara Joint
          ��������          family wasretained.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.1                    TheconceptoftheMitakshara��          coparcenary
          ��������          propertyretainedundersection6 of the HSA has not
          ��������          been amended ever since its enactment.Though, it isa
          ��������          matterofsomesatisfaction that five states in India
          ��������          namely, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,Maharashtra
          ��������          andKarnataka1 have taken cognisance of the fact that a
          ��������          woman needs to be treated equally both intheeconomic
          ��������          and the social spheres.As per the law of four of these
          ��������          states,(Keralaexcluded),inajointHindu family
          ��������          governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener
          ��������          shall by birth become a coparcener in her ownrightin
          ��������          the samemanneras the son.Kerala, however, has gone
          ��������          one step further and abolished the righttoclaimany
          �����                    ���interestinanyproperty 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 theJoint
          ��������          Hindu family system altogether including the Mitakshara,
          ��������          Marumakkattayam,AliyasantanaandNambudri��          systems.
          ��������          Thusenacting that joint tenants be replaced by tenants
          ��������          in common.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.2                    The approach of the Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
          ��������          Maharashtra��          and��          Karnataka��          statelegislaturesis,
          ��������          strikingly differentfromthatofKeralaandthese
          ��������          states��          instead��          ofabolishingtherightbybirth
          ��������          strengthenedit,whilebroadlyremovingthegender
          ��������          discrimination inherentin Mitakshara Coparcenary.The
          ��������          broad features of thelegislationsaremoreorless
          ��������          couched in the same language in each of these Acts.The
          ��������          amending��          Acts��          ofAndhraPradesh,TamilNaduand
          ��������          Maharashtra add three sections namely, 29A, 29B and29C
          ��������          butKarnataka numbers them as Sections 6A, 6B and 6C of
          ��������          the Act.
                                                                 
                      ��������            3.2.3                    These state enactments provide equal rightsto
          ��������          adaughterinthecoparcenary property and contain a
          ��������          nonobstante clause.In these four states;
          ��������                    �����          (a) the daughter of a coparcener in aJointHindu
          �����������������          Family governed by Mitakshara law, shall become
          �����������������          acoparcenerby birth in her own right in the
          �������                    ����������same manner as the son and have similarrights
          �����������������          inthecoparcenary property and be subject to
          �����������������          similar liabilities anddisabilities;
                                       
          ��������                    �����          (b) On partition of a jointHindufamilyofthe
          �����������                    ������coparcenaryproperty,shewill be allotted a
          �����������������          share equal to that of a son.The share of the
          �����������������          predeceased son or apredeceaseddaughteron
          �����������������          such��          partition��          wouldbeallottedtothe
          ���                    ��������������surviving children of such predeceasedsonor
          �����������������          predeceaseddaughter,if alive at the time of
          �����������������          the partition.
          ��������                    �����          (c) Thispropertyshallbeheld by her with the
          �����������������          incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be
          �����������������          regarded as property capable of beingdisposed
          �����������������          of��          byherbywillorothertestamentary
          �����������������          disposition.
          ��������                    �����          (d) Thestate enactments are prospective in nature
          �����������������          and do not apply to a daughter whoismarried
          �����������������          priorto,ortoapartition 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
          ��������          risetovariousdifficultiesintheirworkingand
          ��������          application.���          These��          four��          amending���          Acts,���          have
          ��������          considerably altered the concept of the Mitakshara Joint
          ��������          familyandcoparcenaryby 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 isrelevanttonotice
          ��������          the observations of Mr.Pataskar made while participating
          ��������          intheparliamentarydebateatthetimethe Hindu
          ��������          Succession Bill, 1955 was moved.He said:
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    "To retain the Mitakshara Joint Familyandat
          �����������������          thesametimeputadaughteronthe same
          �����������������          footing as a son with respect to therightby
          ��������                    ���������birth,rightof survivorship and the right to
          �����������������          claim partition at any time, will be to provide
          �����������������          for a jointfamilyunknowntothelawand
          �����������������          unworkable in practice"3
                                                                 
                      ��������            3.2.6                    It was noticed that in the State of Tamil Nadu,
          ��������          many properties were partitioned between the coparceners
          ��������          beforethe Tamil Nadu (Hindu Succession Amendment) Act,
          ��������          1989cameintoforcewithaviewtodefeat��          the
          ��������          daughter's rightto become a coparcener.These were by
          ��������          and large "fraudulent partitions" whichwerepre-dated
          ��������          sothatnocoparcenaryproperty was available to the
          ��������          daughter.This malpractice has to be checked thoroughly
          ��������          otherwise the very objective of theAct,whichisto
          ��������          remove��          discrimination��          inherent��          intheMitakshara
          ��������          coparcenary��          against��          daughters,��          stands���          defeated.
          ��������          Therefore,thoughtheTamilNaduActreceivedthe
                    �������President's assent on 15.1.1990 and was published in the
          ��������          official gazette only on18.1.1990,theActprovides
          ��������          thatpartitionseffectedcontrarytotheAct 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 majoritywereoftheviewthatsuch
          ��������          transactionsmadejustbeforetheenactmentof the
          ��������          proposed legislation should be declared invalid.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.7                    Anotherinfirmity of these state enactments is
          ��������          that they excludetherightofadaughterwhowas
          ��������          marriedpriorto the commencement of the Act, from the
          ��������          coparcenary property, though, the right is availableto
          ��������          a daughter who is married after the coming into force of
          ��������          the said amendment acts.As a result a married daughter
          ��������          continuesto have her interest in the joint property of
          ��                    ������her paternal family, if hermarriagehastakenplace
          ��������          subsequenttothe enactment while the daughter who got
          ��������          married before the enforcement of the law gets noright
          ��������          atallinthejoint property of her parental family.
          ��������          Such a discrimination appears to be unfair andillegal.
          ��������          ArecentSupreme Court decisions lends support to this
          ��������          view.In Savita Samvedi v.Union of India5 it was held
          ��������          that the distinction between a married and anunmarried
          ��������          daughter may be unconstitutional.The observations made
          ��������          by Mr.Justice Punchhi are relevant; " The eligibility of
          ��������          amarrieddaughtermustbeplacedonparwith an
          ��������          unmarried daughter (for she must have been once inthat
          ��������          state), so as to claim the benefit....."6
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.8                    Themajorityoftherepliesto��          the��          Law
          ��������          Commission'squestionnairearealsoof the view that
          ��������          equalrightsshouldbeconferredon��          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
          ��������          asa          coparcenershould be real in spirit and content.
          ��������          In that event section 23 of the HSA shouldbedeleted.
          ��������          Section23providesthatonthedeathofa Hindu
          ��������          intestate, in case of a dwelling housewhollyoccupied
          ������                    ��bymembersofthejoint family, a female heir is not
          ��������          entitled todemandpartitionunlessthemaleheirs
          ��������          choosetodoso;itfurthercurtailsthe right of
          ��������          residence of a daughter unless she is unmarriedorhas
          ��������          been deserted by or has separated from her husband or is
          ��������          a widow.���          Section23ofHSAneedstobedeleted
          ��������          altogether and there isgreatsupportforthisfrom
          ��������          varioussectionsofsocietywhilereplying          tothe
          ��������          questionnaire.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.10                              Thereis also a need for special protection of
          ��������          a widow's right to reside in the dwellinghouse.���          The
          ��������          familydwellinghouseshould not be alienated without
          ��������          thewidow'sconsentorwithoutproviding��          her��          an
          ��������          alternativeaccomodationaftershehas agreed to the
          ��������          sale of the dwelling house.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.11                              The HSA of 1956 give daughters as wellasthe
          ��������          widowofa deceased coparcener a share in the interest
          ��������          of the deceased malecoparcenar.���          However,thefour
          ��������          Hindu Succession(StateAmendment)Actsi.e.Andhra
          ��������          Pradesh, TamilNadu,KarnatakaandMaharashtrahave
          ��������          conferred��          equal��          coparcenary��          rights��          onsonsand
          ��������          dauthters;thuspreservingtherightbybirthand
          ��������          extending��          ittodaughtersalsointheMitakshara
          ��������          Coparcenary.This has the indirect effectofreducing
          ��������          the widow'ssuccessional share.This is because if the
          ��������          number of coparcenars increase then the interest ofthe
          ��������          husband will decrease.
                                       
          ��������                    3.2.12                              The HSA of 1956 dithered in not abolishingthe
          ��������          veryconceptofcoparcenary which the Act should have
          ��������          done.But the Hindu Succession (StateAmendment)Acts
          ��������          haveconfereduponthedaughter of a coparcener, the
          ��������          right to become a coparcener like a son which may affect
          ��������          the brother-sister relationship.���          Itfurtherappears
          ��������          thatevenwheredaughtershave been made coparceners
          ��������          there is still a reluctance to making her a Karta as the
          ��������          general male view is that she is incapableofmanaging
          ��������          theproperties or running the business and is generally
          ��������          susceptible to the influenceofherhusbandandhis
          ��������          family, if married.This seems to be patently unfair as
          ��������          womenareprovingthemselves equal to any task and if
          ��������          womenareinfluencedbytheirhusbandsand��          their
          ��������          families,men are no less influenced by their wives and
          ��������          their families.
                                       
          ��������                    3.3          ��          Kerala Model
                                       
          ��������                    �������������          The State of Kerala has abolishedtheconcept
          ��������          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
          ��������          modelfurtherstheunificationof Hindu law and P.V.
          ��������          Kane suporting the recommendation of theRauCommittee
          ��������          stated:
                                       
          ��������                    �����                    "Andtheunification of Hindu Law will be
          �����������������          helped by the abolition of the rightbybirth
          �����������������          whichisthe cornerstone of Mitakshara school
          �����������������          andwhichthedraftHinducodeseeks��          to
          �����������������          abolish."8
                                       
                      ��������            3.3.1                    The Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act,
          ��������          1975 (hereinafter known as the KeralaAct)insection
          ��������          4(i)oftheActlaysdown that all the members of a
          ��������          Mitakshara Coparcenary will hold the property as tenants
          ��������          in common on the day the Act comes into forceasifa
          ��������          partitionhadtakenplace and each holding his or her
          ��������          share separately.The notable feature of the Kerala law
          ��������          is that ithasabolishedthetraditionalMitakshara
          ��������          coparcenary andthe right by birth.But in Kerala, the
          ��������          Marumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri systemswere
          ��������          alsopresent,some of which were matrilineal and these
          ��������          joint families were also abolished.��          TheKeralaModel
          ��������          probably��          resultsinmaintenanceofgreaterfamily
          ��������          harmony and appears to be a fair decision asinKerala
          ��������both matrilineal and patrilineal joint families existed.
          ��������          IftheJointfamilywas abolished today in the other
          ��������          states then a deemedpartitionwouldtakeplaceand
          ��������          womennotbeingcoparcenerswouldget nothing more.
          ��������          Whereas if they are made coparceners, thentheybecome
          ��������          equal sharers.
                                       
          ��������                    3.3.2                    However, one common drawback of both the Kerala
          ��������          modelandthe Andhra model is that it fails to protect
          ��������          the share of the daughter, mother orwidowfrombeing
          ��������          defeatedby making a testamentary disposition in favour
          ��������          of another, or by alienation.This criticism ofcourse
          ��������          againsttestamentarydispositioncanbe also used to
          ��������disinherit a son.The questionwhetherarestriction
          ��������          should��          be��          placed��          onthemakingoftestamentary
          ��������          disposition as in some of the personal lawsisanother
          ��������          matter in issue.
                                       
          ��������                    3.4          ��          Inordertoprovidewomenwith some better
          ��������          property rights, four states have dealt with thematter
          ��������          by virtue of the Hindu Succession (State Amendment) Acts
          ��������          andKeralahasdealtwith it by abolishing the Hindu
          ��������          Joint Family altogether.���          Thishasresultedintwo
          ��������          different modelsbeinginexistencei.e.the Andhra
          ��������          model and the Kerala model.
                                       
                      ��������            3.5          ��          Recent reports in some newspapersrevealthat
          ��������          theCentrehasaskedallthestatestocarry out
          ��������          suitable amendments in the HSA to confer property rights
          ��������          on women in a joint family."TheDepartmentofWomen
          ��������          andChildDevelopment has requested various States and
          ��������          UnionTerritoriestodrawupnecessarylegislature
          ��������          proposaltoamendsection6 of the HSA, 1956 to give
          ��������          daughters their dueshareofcoparcenaryright"9as
          ��������          alreadydoneby States like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
          ��������          Maharashtra andTamilNadu.���          Itisalsoindicated
          ��������          thereinthattheKeralaGovernment has taken a stand
          ��������          thatinviewoftheKeralaJoint��          family��          system
          ��������          (Abolition)Act,1975,Section 6 of the HSA "does not
          ��������          operate" in that State.
                                       
          ��������                    3.6          ��          Thesubjectmatterof the laws of succession
          ��������          fall in entry 5 of the Concurrent ListoftheSeventh
          ��������          Schedule tothe Constitution.Therefore, Parliament as
          ��������          well as the State Legislatures arecompetentto          enact
          ��������          laws inthisarea.��          In case another State brings some
          ��������          third model of legislation in thisfield,thereisa
          ��������          likelihoodofhavingstill more diversity in the law.
          ��������          This would result in the directive principlesofstate
          ��������          policynotbeing adhered to which require the State to
          ��������          endeavour to secure a uniform civil code throughoutthe
          ��������          territory ofIndia.���          Ifwecannot have that for the
          ��������          present weshouldatleasthaveuniformityamongst
          ��������          Hindus.��          Accordingly,thereis need to have a central
          ��������          law enacted byParliamentunderarticle246ofthe
          ��������          Constitution.In such a situation the law made by these
          ��������          fivestateswouldstandrepealedtotheextent 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 HinduSuccession(TamilNaduAmendment)
          �����������������          Act.1989
          ��������                    �����                    TheHinduSuccession(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 andCivilLaw)(1946)
          �����������������          Vol.III, p.823
          ��������          9.���                    PTI,"CentreasksStatesto��          amend��          Hindu
          �����������������          SuccessionAct",TheObserver7.2.2000; see
          �����������������          also The Tribune, 22.3.2000.        
                                       
                                       
                                       
          �����������������������������������������������������������                  
          �����������������������������������������������������������                                                                            
                      CHAPTER - IV                                                                            
          ������������������������������������������������������������                  
          ���������          4.1          ��          Questionnaire and its responses
                                       
          ��������                    �������������          Aquestionnairewas��          issued��          by��          the��          Law
          ��������          Commissiontoelicit the views of the public regarding
          ��������          givingofrightstoadaughterintheMitakshara
          ��������          property of���          a��          Hindu��          undivided��          family.�����          This
          ��������          questionnaireconsistedofthreeparts��          having��          21
          ��������          questions.1Sixty-Seven respondents have replied to the
                    �������questionnaire.30 respondents are fromtheprofession
          ��������          oflawandtherest comprise sociologists, NGOs etc.
          ��������          The responses received relating to various issues of the
          ��������          questionnairehavebeenanalysedandtabulated��          in
          ��������          Annexure II.���          Abriefsynopsisofthe more salient
          ��������          issues is set out.
                                       
          ��������                    4.2          MitaksharaJointFamily to be retained or not
          �����������������          and reasons for doing so?
                                       
          ��������                    �����                              ������          Outofthe67 respondents, the majority
          �����������������          opposed���          retention���          of���          the���          Mitakshara
          �����������������          Coparcenary.��          Thetwomain reasons indicated
          �����������������          forthisoppositionwere,the��          coparcenary
          �����������������          systemdiscriminatesagainstwomenandthe
          �����������������          legislative changeshavealreadyerodedthe
          �����������������          utility of the coparcenary system.The few who
          �����������������          favoured its retention were of the view that it
          �����������������          protectsthe financially weaker members of the
          �����������������          family, gives better rights to males andhelps
          �����������������          inagricultureand business activities of the
          �����������������          family.
                                       
          ��������                    4.3          Steps��          to��          be��          taken��          to��          remove���          gender
          �����������������          discrimination
                                       
          ��������                    �����                              ������          However, the majority oftherespondents
          �����������������          suggested��          that,��          even��          if,theMitakshara
          �����������������          Coparcenary is retained,thoughitwouldbe
          �����������������          betterifit          weredone 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 theJointFamily
          �����������������          in case Mitakshara Joint Family is retained.
                                       
          ��������                    �����                              ������          Abouthalftherespondentswantedthe
          �����������������          daughterto become a Karta in the Joint Family
          �����������������          if the Mitakshara Joint Family is retained.
          ��������                    4.5          Fromwhatperiod should the Act (when passed)
          �����������������          be applicable?
                                       
          ��������                    �����                              ������          Opinion on this issue was clearlydivided
          �����������������          and��          only��          11��          respondentsfavouredgiving
          ����������������                    retrospective effect, from 10 to 15 years prior
          �����������������          tothepassingoftheAct;14were��          for
          �����������������          providingprotection to the purchasers who had
          �����������������          boughttheproperty��          in��          good��          faith;��          12
          ��������                    ���������respondents were in favour of not affecting the
          �����������������          vestedrightsandsomerespondentsdid not
          �����������������          answer the querry.
          ��������          .
          ��������                    4.6          Shouldthe right of coparcenary be confered on
          �����������������          the mother by the proposed legislation?
                                       
          ��������                    �����                              ������          Themajoirtyof the respondents favoured
          �����������������          conferring coparcenary right on the mother.
                                       
                      ��������            4.7          Shouldattempts��          to��          defeat��          the��          proposed
          �����������������          legislation immediately before its enactment by
          �����������������          partition or sales be declared invalid?
          ��������                    �����                              ������          The majority of therespondentsanswered
          �����������������          thequestion 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
                                       
          ��������                    �����                              ������          Themajoritypreferredthatthe law be
          �����������������          amended to provide that partition can be sought
          �����������������          by the female heirs also even if there was only
          �����������������          one ancestralhome.���          Ontheissuewhether
          �����������������          married daughters be given a right of residence
          �����������������          inthedwellinghouse, the majority favoured
          ������������                    �����equaltreatementformarriedandunmarried
          �����������������          daughtersandsome 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,61have expressed themselves in favour of
          �����������������          giving a special protection to a widow'sright
          �����������������          to reside��          in��          thedwellinghouse.          ���Other
          �����������������          alternative suggestions madeweretodeclare
          �����������������          that��          thefamilydwellinghousecannotbe
          �����������������          alienatedwithoutthewidow's��          consent��          or
          �����������������          withoutproviding an alternative accommodation
          �����������������          to her after she had agreed to the sale ofthe
          �����������������          dwelling house, or to confer `Homestead' rights
          �����������������          on the wife/widow like in U.S.A., Canada.
                                       
          ��������                    4.10          InheritanceCertificate��          on��          death��          of��          an
          �����������������          individualby all heirs indicating their share
          �����������������          in the property
                                       
          ��������                    �����                              ������          The��          majority��          wantedthatInheritance
          �����������������          Certificates should be issued but watntedthat
          �����������������          to beissuedatthelowestrung,i.e.by
          �����������������          Munsif's Courts.���          Theyalso��          favoured��          the
          �����������������          establishment��          of��          `Itinerary��          Courts'��          for
          �����������������          achieving the said purpose.
                                       
          ��������                    4.11          Modeltofollowforbringingtheproposed
          �����������������          legislation
                                       
          ��������                    �������������          (a)�����������          Kerala Model, 1976
          ��������                    �������������          (b)�����������          Andhra Model, 1986
          ��������                    �������������          (c)�����������          To amend and recast Section 6 of�����������������������������������������������������������������          HAS
          ��������                    �������������          (d)����                    ToomitSection 6 altogether and add
          �������������������������������          an explanation to Section 8.
                                       
          ��������                    �����                              ������          The Commission solicitedopiniononthe
          �����������������          importantquestion as to which model should be
          �����������������          followedifitweretorecommend��          a��          new
          �����������������          legislation��          forthepurposeofconferring
          �����������������          rights on daughters.Out of 67 respondents24
          �����������������          favoured��          theAndhraPradeshmodeland22
          ���������                    ��������favoured theKeralaModel.���          Some,however,
          �����������������          favoured the recasting of Section 6 of HSA, and
          �����������������          fewothers 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
          �����������������          respondentssuggestedto limit it to one half
          �����������������          of the shareinthepropertyandanequal
          �����������������          numbersuggestedtolimit 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 ofsection
          �����������������          6          ofHSAand 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, jointfamily
          �����������������          propertydevolvesbysurvivorship within the
          �����������������          coparcenary.MitaksharaLawalsorecognises
          �����������������          inheritanceby succession but only to property
          �����������������          separatelyownedbyanindividualmaleor
          �����������������          female.(Para 1.3.3)
                                       
          ��������                    5.3          Dayabhagaschool neither accords right by
          �����������������          birth nor by survivorship though a Joint family
          �����������������          and its coparcenary isrecognised.���          Itlays
          �����������������          downonlyone mode of succession and the same
          �����������������          rules of inheritance apply whetherthefamily
          �����������������          is��          divided��          orundividedandwhetherthe
          �����������������          property is ancestral or self-acquired.���          Sons
          �����������������          anddaughtersbecomecoparceners only on the
          �����������������          death of the father and get equal rights in the
          �����������������          family property.(Para 1.3.4)
                                       
          ��������                    5.4          The framersoftheIndianConstitution
          �����������������          tooknoteoftheadverseanddiscriminary
          �����������������          position of women in society andtookspecial
          �����������������          care as per articles 14,15(2)and (3) to prevent
          �����������������          discrimination againstwomen.��          Part IV of the
          �����������������          Constitution through theDirectivePrinciples
          �����������������          of State Policy further provides that the State
          �����������������          shallendeavour to ensure equality between man
          �����������������          and woman.(para 1.5)
                                       
          ��������                    5.5          Despitethe��          Constitution��          guaranteeing
          �����������������          equality��          to��          women��          therearestillmany
          �����������������          discriminatory aspects in the law of succession
          �����������������          against aHinduwomanundertheMitakshara
          �����������������          systemof 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, TamilNadu,
          �����������������          MaharashtraandKarnatakahaveamendedthe
          �����������������          provisions ofHSAeffectingchangesinthe
          �����������������          Mitaksharacoparcenaryof the Hindu undivided
          �����������������          family.These four stateshavedeclaredthe
          ���������                    ��������daugher to be coparcener.The state of Kerala,
          �����������������          however,hastotallyablishedtheright by
          �����������������          birth and put an end to the Joint HinduFamily
          �����������������          instead of tinkering with the coparcenery.The
                    ����������������consequence��          ofthisde-recognitionofthe
          �����������������          members of the family,irrespectiveoftheir
          �����������������          sex, who are governed by Mitakshara Law is that
          �����������������          theybecometenantsincommonof 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
          �����������������          inclinedtorecommendtheadoptionofthe
          �����������������          KeralaModelintoto as it had abolished the
          �����������������          right bybirthofmalesintheMitakshara
          �����������������          coparcenaryandbroughtanend to the Joint
          �����������������          Hindu Family.Thisappearedtobefairto
          �����������������          womenas they did not have any right by birth;
          �����������������          but on further examination it became clear that
          �����������������          if the joint Hindu familyisabolshedason
          �����������������          dateand there are only male coparceners, then
          �����������������          only they would hold as tenants incommonand
          �����������������          womenwouldnotgetanything more than what
          �����������������          they are alreadyentitledtobyinheritance
          �����������������          under section6of HSA.So the Commission is
          �����������������          of the view that it would bebettertofirst
          �����������������          makedaughterscoparcenerslike sons so that
          �����������������          they would be entitled to and get theirshares
          ���������                    ��������onpartitionoronthedeathofthe male
          �����������������          coparcener and hold thereafterastenantsin
          �����������������          common.We recommend accordingly.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.1                    The Andhra Model does not do fulljustice
          �����������������          to          daughtersas it denies a daughter, married
          �����������������          before the Act came into force,therightto
          �����������������          become a coparcener.Obviously, this was based
          �����������������          onthe assumption that daughters go out of the
          ������������                    �����family on marriage and thereby cease to be full
          �����������������          members of the family.TheCommissionwanted
          �����������������          to��          doawaywiththisdistinctionbetween
          �����������������          married and unmarried daughters,butaftera
          ����                    �������������greatdealofdeliberation and agonizing, it
          �����������������          decided,thatitshouldberetainedasa
          �����������������          marrieddaughter has already received gifts at
          �����������������          thetimeof��          marriage��          which��          though��          not
          �����������������          commensuratewiththeson'sshareis often
          �����������������          quite substantial.Keeping thisinmindthe
          �����������������          distinctionbetweendaughters already married
          �����������������          before the commencment oftheActandthose
          �����������������          married thereafter appears to be reasonable and
          �����������������          further would prevent heart-burning and tension
          �����������������          in the family.A daughter who is married after
          �����������������          thecommencementof the Act will have already
          �����������������          become a coparcener and entitled tohershare
          �����������������          intheancestralpropertysoshemaynot
          �����������������          receive any substantialfamilygiftsatthe
          �����������������          time ofhermarriage.���          Hopefully, this will
          �����������������          result in the death of the evil dowry system.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.2                    The Kerala Act abrogated thedoctrineof
          �����������������          piousobligation of the son whereas the Andhra
          �����������������          Model and otherswhichconferredcoparcenary
          �����������������          rightsonunmarrieddaughtersare silent in
          �����������������          this regardexceptthatthedaughterasa
          �����������������          coparcenerisbound by the common liabilities
          �����������������          and presumably can become a karta in theJoint
          �����������������          family.��          Werecommendtheabrogation of the
          �����������������          doctrineofpiousobligationandthatthe
          �����������������          daughter be a coparcener in the full sense.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.3                    Consequently,as above indicated, we have
          �����������������          recommended a combinationoftheAndhraand
          �����������������          Kerala Models.���          Weare of the view that this
          �����������������          synthesis is in keepingwithjustice,equity
          ��������������                    ���and family harmony.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.4                    We are also of the view that Section 23 of
          �����������������          HSA which places restrictions onthedaughter
          �����������������          to claim partition of the dwelling house should
          �����������������          be deleted���          altogether.�������          We��          recommend
          �����������������          accordingly.
                                       
          ��������                    5.7.5                    As noticedearlierquiteoftenfathers
          �����������������          willawaytheir property so that the daughter
          �����������������          does not get a share even in hisself-acquired
          �����������������          property.Apart from this, quite often persons
          �����������������          willaway their property to people who are not
          �����������������          relatives, thus totally depriving thechildren
          �����������������          and��          legal��          heirs��          who��          havealegitimate
          �����������������          expectation.Consequently, therehasbeena
          �����������������          strongdemand for placing a restriction on the
          �����������������          right of testamentary disposition.��          Butafter
          �����������������          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, 2000so
          �����������������          that��          the��          recommendationsmadebyusare
          �����������������          hopefullyimplementedwith��          speed��          by��          the
          �����������������          government.��          ThisBillhasbeenannexed 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 Mitaksharalaw, 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 coparcenaryproperty 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 gothad 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 shallrecognise 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-sectionshall 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, 2000had not been enacted.

����������

Explanation.- For the purposes ofclause (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 commencementofthe Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2000.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to apartition which has been effected

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

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

                                       
          ����������������������������������������������������������                  
          ��������          ��������������������������������������������                  
          �������������������������������������������������������������        
          ����������������������������������������������������������                                                                            
                      ANNEXURE - II                                                                            
                                                                                               
                      ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF                              
                      LAW COMMISSION                  
                                       
          �������                    ������          The Law Commission'squestionnaireisdivided
          �������          into threeparts.���          Part I deals with information about
          �������          the respondent;partIIelicitsrespondentviewson
          �������          issues��          relating��          tovariousaspectsandimpactof
          �������          coparcenary and lastly part II invites comments fromthe
          �������          respondents.The respondents were asked to answer in yes
          �������          and noandweregivenseveralchoices.��          Sixty Seven
          �������          respondents hadrepliedtothequestionnaire.�����          30
          �������          respondentsweremainlyfrom 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, 49opposedits
          ����������������          retentionand17favouredit and one did not
          ����������������          reply (vide Q.1).
          �������                    ��������������                  
          ��������          ������          2. Reasonsfavouring��          retention��          of��          Mitakshara
          ����������������          Coparcenary
          �������                    ������                              ������          Therespondentsfavouringretention have
          ����������������          done so mainly for the reason thatitprotects
          ����������������          thefinancially 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 giveanyof
          ����������������thefollowinggroundsas per Q.3 in case they
          ����������������          chose to negative theretentionofMitakshara
          ����������������          System - (a) the changes would affect harmony in
          ����������������          theFamily;(b)that legislative changes have
          ����������������          already eroded the utilityofthecoparcenary
          ����������������          system;(c)thatitwould have a detrimental
          ����������������          effect on the running offamilybusiness;(d)
          ����������������          thatidlemembers of a joint family prosper at
          ����������������          the expense of the hard working members and(e)
          ����������������          thatcoparcenarysystemdiscriminates against
          ����������������          women.
          �������                    ������                              ������                  
          ��������          ������                              ������          33respondents��          preferred��          part(e);��          21
          ����������������          part(b);12part(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 choicesinQ.4toremovegender
          ����������������          discrimination.
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          The��          majoritythatis,35respondents,
          ����������������          favoured part(b) whichstatedthatMitakshara
          ����������������          Coparcenaryshouldberetained but the gender
          ����������������          bias to remove by conferring upon daughtersthe
          ����������������          righttobecomeacoparcenerlike a son; 22
          ����������������          respondentsfavouredpart(a),that��          is,��          to
          ����������������          abolish the coparcenary right by birth.
                                       
          �������                    ������          5. Daughter becoming a Karta in the Joint Family.
          �������                    ������                              ������          33respondentspreferring the daughter to
          ����������������          become Karta in the Joint FamilyofMitakshara
          ����������������          Joint��          Family��          is��          retained;10respondents
          ����������������          negativated it and 8 did not reply as per Q.5.
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          It maybenotedthatthisquestionis
          ����������������          directlyrelevanttoQ.No.1,whereonly17
          ����������������          respondents favoured the retention of Mitakshara
          ����������������          systemwhereasitmay��          be��          seen��          that��          33
          ����������������          respondents have preferred the daughter becoming
          ����������������          KartaintheJointFamily if Joint Family is
          ����������������          retained.
                                       
          ��                    �����          ������                              ������          SeveralchoicesarelistedinQ.6for
          ����������������          negativating the daughters becoming a Karta such
          ����������������          as��          -(a)womenareincapableofmanaging
          ����������������          propertiesor��          agriculture;��          (b)��          they��          are
          �����                    �����������incapaableofrunningabusiness;(c)once
          ����������������          married they move away from their families;and
          ����������������          (d)theyaresusceptible to the influences of
          ����������������          the husband or his family; (e) other reasons.
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          11 respondents optedforpart(c);5for
          ����������������          part(d) and 13 did not reply to this question.
                                       
          �������                    ������          6. Conferring equal rights upon married & unmarried
          ����������������          daughters.
          �������                    ������                              ������          36repliesfavoured the view that married
          ����������������          daughters��          should��          have��          equal��          rights���          in
          ����������������          coparcenaryproperty as per Clause(b); 14 opted
          ����������������          for Clause (a) by limiting this right infavour
          ����������������          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?
          �������                    ������                              ������          21respondentsdid not reply; 10 favoured
          ����������������          choice in part (a) that is to give retrospective
          ����������������          effect from 10 to 15 years prior to thepassing
          ����������������          of��          theAct;15forpart(b)forproviding
          ����������������          protection to buyers of property in goodfaith;
          ����������������          12 respondents were in favour of part(c) for not
          ����������������          affectingthevestedrightsand 11 opted for
          ����������������          part(a) of Q.8.
                                       
          �������                    ������          8. Should coparcenaryrightbeconferedonthe
          ����������������          mother��          ofthecoparcenarybytheproposed
          ����������������          legislation?
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          51 out of 67 respondentsansweredinthe
          ����������������          affirmative;5inthe negative and 11 did not
          ����������������          respond to Q.9.
                                       
          �������                    ������          9. The Commission vide Q.10 pointed out thatthere
          ����������������          maybe attempts to defeat the provisions of the
          ����������������          proposed legislation by effecting partitionsor
          ����������������          by sales.��          Should such transactions be declared
          ����������������          invalid before theenactmentoftheproposed
          ����������������          legislation?
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          The��          respondents��          wereaskedtochoose
          ����������������          between yes or no.The majority,thatis,58
          ����������������respondents��          answered��          the��          questioninthe
          ����������������          affirmative; and 7 were against it;and9did
          ����������������          not reply.
                                       
          �������                    ������          10. Onthequestionof preference of abolition of
          ����������������          special rules discriminatingagainstdaughters
          ����������������          for devolution of agricultural interests.
          �������                    ������                              ������          The��          majority��          thatis,54respondents
          ����������������          answered Q.11 in the affirmative and only 7 were
          ����������������          against it, 6 did not reply.
                                       
          �������                    ������          11. Dwelling House
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          43 respondents preferred amendmentoflaw
          ����������������          toprovidethat partition can be sought by the
          ����������������          female heirs also even iftherewasonlyone
          ����������������          ancestral home,as          in part(a) of Q.13.On the
          ����������������          issue whether married daughters be given a right
          ����������������          of residenceinthedwelling��          house.�����          39
          ����������������          respondentsexpressedthemselvesin favour of
          ����������������          this cause of action and24wereagainstit.
          ����������������          Further, 27 respondents favoured the deletion of
          ����������������          section23ofHSA altogether and 26 opted for
          ����������������          course of action mentionedinpart(b),namely
          ��������                    ��������making section 23 inapplicable to dwelling house
          ����������������          belongingto Hindu female intestates in respect
          ����������������          to Q.14 and others did not reply.
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          The majority of the respondents,thatis,
          ����������������          61��          haveexpressedthemselvesinfavourof
          ����������������          special protection to widow's right to reside in
          ����������������          the dwellinghouseasper��          Q.15.�����          ;��          26
          ����������������          respondentshave opted for the course of action
          ����������������          in part (b) of Q.16bydeclaringthatfamily
          ����������������          dwelling��          housecannotbealienatedwithout
          ����������������          widow'sconsent��          or��          without��          providing��          an
          ����������������          alternativeaccommodationto her after she had
          ���������                    �������agreed to the sale ofthedwellinghouse;29
          ����������������          respondents��          opted��          for��          part(a),toconfer
          ����������������          `Homestead' rights onthewife/widowlikein
          ����������������          U.S.A., Canada , and few have not replied to the
                    ���������������question.
                                       
          �������                    ������          12. Inheritance��          Certificate��          on��          death��          of��          an
          ����������������          individual by all heirs indicatingtheirshare
          ����������������          in the property
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          In answer toQ.��          No.17, the majority of
          ������������                    ����the respondents that is 55 favouredthetaking
          ����������������          of an inheritance certificate by all heirs.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    Questionof authority to be conferred, upon the
          ����������������          issue of `Inheritance Certificate'
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          50respondents��          stated��          that��          `District
          ����������������          Munsif'sCourts'should alone be conferred the
          ����������������          authority to issue such Inheritance Certificates
          ����������������          and in response to Q.18, all the 49respondents
          ����������������          havefavoured          theestablishment of `Itinerary
          ����������������          Courts' for achieving the saidpurposeasper
          ����������������          Q.19.
                                       
          �������                    ������          13. Model��          tofollowforbringingtheproposed
          ����������������          legislation
          �������                    ������                    (a)����������          Kerala Model, 1976
          ������                              ��������������          (b)�����������          Andhra Model, 1986
          �������                    ��������������          (c)�����������          To amend and recast Section 6 of HSA
          �������                    ��������������          (d)����                    To omit Section 6 altogetherandadd
          ��������������������������          an explanation to Section 8.
          �������                    ������                              ������                  
          ��������          ������                              ������          TheCommissionsolicitedopinions on the
          ����������������          important question as to which modelshouldbe
          ����������������          followed��          if��          it��          weretorecommendanew
          ����������������          legislation for the purpose of conferring rights
          ����������������          on daughters.���          Outof��          67��          respondents��          23
          ����������������          respondentsfavouredthe Andhra Pradesh model;
          ����������������          22 respondentsfavouredtheKeralaModel;6
          ����������������          respondentsfavoured 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 dispositionbutonly
          ����������������          21statedto 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 fromthe
          �������          respondents
                                       
          �������                    ������                    Any other comments
                                       
          �������                    ������          1. Only35respondentsmadegeneral comments in
          ����������������          response to Q.22.Their general viewwasthat
          ����                    ������������the��          concept��          of��          HinduMitaksharawasnot
          ����������������          acceptablebecauseitdiscriminated��          between
          ����������������          males and females.If females were made part of
          ����������������          MitaksharaCoparcenary,it would reduce gender
          ����������������          inequality to a considerable extent.��          Forthis
          ����������������          purpose,Section 6 of the HSA should be amended
          ����������������          byParliamentand��          so��          amended��          should��          be
          ����������������          implemented uniformly throughout India.
          �������                    ������          2. Stpes must be take to protect the interests of a
          ����������������          wife/widow.
          �������                    ������          3. Restrictionson 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 theCommissionto
          �������          makeanempirical study of the issue and not to lightly
          �������          decide to discard theexistingsystemofHinduJoint
          �������          Family/HUFwhich was based on mutual love, affection and
          �������          compassion and family as a means offulfillingphysical
          �������          and economicneeds.According to this respondent, there
          �������          was no gender bias against females under section 6 of the
          �������          HSA.In fact, female inherits from the fathers'sfamily
          �������          aswellashusbandsfamily 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 orgreat
          �������          grandson).Thus the bias is in favour of the female.
                                       
                                       
          ��������������������������������������������������������                                                                                        ����        
          ���������������������������������������������������������        
                                       
                      Annexure - III                                                                            
                                    ��������������������������������������������                                                          
                      WORKING PAPER ON                              
                      COPARCENARY RIGHTS TO DAUGHTERS UNDER THE HINDU LAW                  
                                       
          �������                    ������          UnderancientHindu��          Society,��          a��          woman��          was
          �������          consideredtobeoflow social status and treated as a
          �������          dependent with barely any property rights.���          Asperthe
          �������          text of Baudhayana, women had no place in the Hindu scheme
          �������          ofinheritanceand"Femalesweredevoid of powers and
          �������          incompetent to inherit." But by virtueofspecialtexts
          �������          specified female heirs were given the right to inherit.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The Dayabhaga lawandtheBenarasandMithila
          �������          sub-schoolsofMitakashralawrecognizedfive females
          �������          relations asbeingentitledtoinheritnamely,widow
          �������          daughter,��          mother,paternalgrandmother,andpaternal
          �������          great-grandmother and the MadrasandBombaysub-schools
          �������          recognisedtheheritablecapacity of a larger number of
          �������          female heirs.1
                                       
          �������                    ������          Sometimes��          the��          laws��          themselvesdiscriminated
          �������          against women.This was particularly true inthesphere
          �������          of family laws in India which are "Personal Laws", that is
          �������          thelawapplicabletoa person on the basis of his/her
          �������          religion.Some ofthesepersonallawsexhibitstrong
          �������          features of discrimination against women.
          �������                    ������          Duringthe British period social reform movements
          �������          raised the issue of amelioration ofwomen'spositionin
          �������          society.��          Theearliest legislation bringing females into
          �������          the scheme of inheritance is the Hindu Law ofInheritance
          �������          Act, 1929.���          ThisAct,conferredinheritance rights on
          �������          three femaleheirsi.e.���          son'sdaughter,��          daughter's
          �������          daughters��          and��          sister��          (thereby��          creatingalimited
          �������          restriction on the rule ofsurvivorship).���          Duringthis
          �������          periodanotherlandmark legislation conferring ownership
          �������          right on a woman was the Hindu Women's RighttoProperty
          �������          Act XVIIIof1937.This Act brought about revolutionary
          �������          changes in the Hindu Law of all schools, and affectednot
          �������          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 theson and to take the same share as the son.This
          �������          widow is not a coparcener even though she possesaright
          �������          akintocoparcenaryinterestinthe property and is a
          �������          member of the Joint Family.However, under theAct,the
          �������          widowwasentitledonlytoalimitedestatein the
          �������          property of the deceased with a right to claimpartition.
          �������          Adaughterhadvirtuallyno inheritance rights at all.
          �������          But, both enactmentslargelyleftuntouchedthebasic
          �������          features��          of��          discrimination��          againstwomenandwere
          �������          subsequently repealed.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The framers of our Constitution were aware ofthe
          �������          lowpositionof 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)and16of
          �������          theConstitution of India not only inhibit discrimination
          �������          against women but in appropriate circumstancesprovidea
          �������          free��          hand��          to��          the��          State��          to��          provide��          protective
          �������          discrimination in favour of women.Theseprovisionsare
          �������          part��          of��          the��          FundamentalRightsguaranteedbythe
          �������          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 stillnot
          �������          only neglected in her own natal family but also the family
          �������          she marries into because of certain laws and attitudes.
                                       
          �������                    ������          After the advent of theConstitution,thefirst
          �������lawmadeat the central level pertaining to property and
          �������          inheritance concerning HinduswastheHinduSuccession
          �������          Act, 1956(hereinaftercalledtheHSA).This Act came
          �������          into force on 17th June,1956.���          TheHSAlaysdowna
          �������          uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and aplies
          �������          inter-alia to persons governed by Mitakshara and Dayabhaga
          �������          Schoolsasalsotothosein certain parts of southern
          �������          India who were previously governed by the Murumakkattayan,
          �������          Aliyasantana and Nambudri Systems of Hindu Law.��          TheAct
          �������          applies to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of
          �������          itsformsordevelopmentsora follower of the Brahmo
          �������          Prarthana or Arya Samaj or to any person who is a Budhist,
          �������          Jain or Sikh by religion.In the case ofatestamentary
          �������          dispositionthisAct shall not apply and the interest of
          �������          the deceased would be governed bytheIndianSuccession
          �������          Act, 1925.
                                       
          �������                    ������          There is nodoubtthatitreformedtheHindu
          �������          personallawandgavewomengreaterproperty rights,
          �������          allowing women full ownership rightsinsteadoflimited
          �������          rightsin the property they inherited from their husbands
          �������          under Section 14 withafreshstockofdescentunder
          �������          sections 15and16ofthisAct.��          Daughters were also
          �������          granted property rights in theirfathers'estate.���          The
          �������          attempt��          tobringaboutreformsandacomprehensive
          �������          codification of Hindu Law wasresistedbytheorthodox
          �������          sections ofHindus.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 legislationbeundertakento
          �������          substantiallyremovethedisparitiesanddisabilities
          �������          suffered by the Hindu women.Consequently it was possible
          �������          to bring into force, the HinduMarriageAct,1955;the
          �������          HinduAdoptionsandMaintenanceAct,1956,the Hindu
          �������          MinorityandGuardianshipAct,1956;andThe��          Hindu
          �������          Succession Act, 1956.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Underthe HSA if a Hindu male dies intestate, all
          �������          his separate or self-acquired property devolvesinequal
          �������          sharesonhissons,daughters,widowandmotheras
          �������          specified class I heirs.
                                       
          �������                    ������          However, the devolution of interest to coparcenary
          �������          property is set out in section 6 -
                                       
          �������                    ������          Section 6 of the HSA dealingwithdevolutionof
          �������          interest to coparcenary property states-
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          "When��          a��          male��          Hindudiesafterthe
          �������          commencement of this Act, having at the time his deathan
          �������          interest��          in��          aMitaksharacoparcenaryproperty,his
          �������          interest in the propertyshalldevolvebysurvivorship
          �������          uponthesurviving members of the coparcenary and not in
          �������          accordance with this Act:
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Provided that, if thedeceasedhadleft
          ���������������          him surviving a female relative specified in Class
          ���������������          Iof the Schedule or a male relative specified in
          ���������������          thatclasswhoclaims��          through��          such��          female
          ���������������          relative,theinterestofthedeceased in the
          ���������������          Mitakshara Coparcenary property shalldevloveby
          ���������������          testamentaryor intestate succession, as the case
          ���������������          may be, under this Act and not by survivorship.
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Explanation 1.-- For the purposes ofthis
          ���������������          section,��          theinterestofaHinduMitakshara
          ���������������          coparcener shall be deemed to be the share inthe
          ���������������          property that would have been allotted to him if a
          �������������                    ��partition��          of��          the��          propertyhadtakenplace
          ���������������          immediately before the his death, irrespectiveof
          ���������������          whetherhewas entitled to claim partition of or
          ���������������          not.
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Explanation 2,-- Nothing contained inthe
          ���������������          provisotohissectionshallbeconstrued as
          ���������������          enabling a person who has separatedhimselffrom
          ���������������          thecoparcenarybefore the death of the deceased
          ���������������          or any his heirs to claim on intestacy a sharein
          ���������������          the interest referred to therein.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Theprovisionabovenoted indicates when a male
          �������          Hindu dies having at the time of his death an interestin
          �������          aMitaksharacoparcenarypropertyand is survived by a
          �������          female relative specified in class I oftheScheduleof
          �������          theActoramale relative specified in that class who
          �������          claims through such female relative, the interestofthe
          �������          deceasedintheMitaksharacoaprcenarypropertyshal
          �������          devolve by testamentary or intestate succession and not by
          �������          survivorship.In the absence of this eventhisinterest
          �������          wouldhave 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 interestofaHindu
          �������          Mitaksharacoparcenershall be deemed to be the share in
          �������          the property that would have been allottedtohimifa
          �������          partitionofthepropertyhadtaken place immediately
          �������          before his death.���          TheSupremeCourtinGurupadav.
          �������          Heerabai3 reaffirming��          in��          Statev.���          Narayanaro4had
          �������          examined Section 6 of the HSA and isoftheviewabove
          �������          expressed.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Section 6 of the HSA contemplates the existence of
          �������          acoparcenaryconsistingofmalememberswho have an
          �������          interest by birth in the joint familyproperty.���          Atno
          �������          timebeforepartitioncanitbepredicted that he is
          �������          entitled to so much share (one half or one fourthorone
          �������          third) inthe 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.Untilpartition
          �������          takesplacethisisanunpredictableand fluctuating
          �������          interest which may be enlarged by deaths and diminished by
          �������          births in the family.According to thenotedHinduLaw
          �������          JuristMayne, every coparcener has a right to be in joint
          �������          possession and enjoyment of the joint family propertyand
          �������          thisisexpressed by saying that there is both community
          �������          of interest and unity of possession.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Every coparcener hasarighttobemaintained
          �������          includinga right to marriage expenses being defrayed out
          �������          of the joint family funds and every coparcener is bound by
          �������          the alienation made by the Karta forlegalnecessityor
          �������          benefit of the estate and by legitimate acts of management
          �������          oftheKarta;every coparcener has a right to object to
          �������          and challenge alienations made without his consent or made
          �������          without legal necessity; and every coparcener has aright
          �������          of partition and survivorship.5
                                       
          �������                    ������          Awidowordaugher on the death of her husband/
          �������          father cannot claim to be asurvivorassheisnota
          �������          coparcener recognised under the Act.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Desipteconstitutionalguaranteefornotonly
          �������          ensuring equality to women, we find that in the sphereof
          �������          property rights granted to Hindu women as wives/widows and
          �������          daughters,there are still many discriminatory aspects in
          ���                    ����the law.When a Womanismaltreatedinherhusband's
          �������          familyorthereis a demand of dowry, there is huge hue
          �������          and cry as theinstancesofkillingbyinlaws/bride
          �������          burning are not unknown in our society.
                                       
          �������                    ������          But the issue here is regarding the discriminatory
          �������          treatmentgiventoherevenby the members of her own
          �������          natal family.In HinduSystem,ancestralpropertyhas
          �������          traditionally been held by a joint Hindu family consisting
          ����                    ���of malecoparceners.���          Coparcenary is a narrower body of
          �������          persons within a jointfamilyandconsistsoffather,
          �������          son's son'sandson'sson'sson.���          Acoparcenary can
          �������          consist of a grandfather and grandson, or brothers, oran
          �������          uncle andnephewandsoon.���          Thus ancestral property
          �������          continues to be governed by a wholly partrilinealregime,
          �������          whereinpropertydescendsonly through the male line as
          �������          only the male members of ajointHindufamilyhavean
          �������          interestbybirthin the joint or coparcenary property.
          �������          Sincewomencouldnotbecoparcenerstheywerenot
          �������          entitledto any share in the ancestral property by birth.
          �������          A son's share in thepropertyofhisintestatefather
          �������          wouldbe in addition to the share he acquired at the time
          �������          of birth whereastheshareofadaughter/mother/wife,
          �������          wouldonlybeout of the interest the deceased had in a
          �������          coparcenary on his death.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Secondly, the patrilineal assumptions ofdominant
          �������          maleideologyisalso reflected in the laws governing a
          �������          Hindu female who dies intestate, lawsthataremarkedly
          �������          different��          fromthosegoverningHindumaleswhodie
          �������          intestate.6 Thepropertyistodevolvefirsttoher
          �������          children andhusband:��          secondly, to her husband's heirs;
          �������          thirdly to her father's heirs, and lastly, to her mother's
          �������          heirs.��          Theprovisionsofsection15(2)attempt��          to
          �������          guaranteethat property continues to be inherited through
          �������          the male heir from whichitcameeitherbackto(her
          �������          father's family or back to her husband's family.
                                       
          �������                    ������          ThereportontheStatusofWomeninIndia
          �������          (1971-74) reveals thattheHinduCodeBill,1948,as
          �������          amendedbytheSelectCommitteehad in fact suggested
          �������          abolition of the coparcenaryi.e.���          themalerightto
          �������          property by birth, and its conversion to the the Dayabhaga
          �������          systemwherethedaughtersgetequalshares with the
          �������          brothers as there is no right by birth for the sons.��          But
          �������          the traditionalresistancewas too strong.Further, the
          �������          case for a daughter's share is often turneddownonthe
          �������          groundthat there is hardly a case of a daughter claiming
          �������          equal rights to parental family property inviewofthe
          �������          over-weighingconsiderationof amity with the family and
          ������                    social disapproval of such a claim.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Thus thelawbyexcludingthedaughtersfrom
          �������          participatingincoparcenary ownership (merely by reason
          �������          of theirsex)notonlycontributedtodiscrimination
          �������          againstfemales but has led to oppression and negation of
          �������          her fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.As
          �������          such, the State hasfailedtobringaboutasuitable
          �������          legislation asrequiredbythe Constitution.It is law
          ����                    ���thatcancontributetoovercomingthisoppression by
          �������          creating alegalorderthattreatsfemalesonequal
          �������          footing.Legislation that on the face of it discriminates
          �������          betweenamale and a female must be made gender neutral.
          �������          Thus, there is little doubt thatradicalreformofthe
          �������          Mitaksharalawofcoparcenaryisrequired so that and
          �������          there should be equal distribution ofpropertynotonly
          �������          withrespect to the separate or self-acquired property of
          �������          the deceased male but also with respect tohisundivided
          �������          interest inthecoparcenaryproperty.���          This should be
          �������          distributed equallyamonghismaleandfemaleheirs,
          �������          particularly his son and daughter.This will go a one way
          �������          in eradicating the evils of the dowry system prevailing in
          �������          oursociety and award a status of honour and dignity to a
          �������          daughter at least in her family of birth.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Itisa matter of satisfaction to note that five
          �������          states in India, namely,Kerala,Kanataka,TamilNadu,
          �������          AndhraPradeshandMaharashtra have taken cognisance of
          �������          the fact that social justice requires awomanshouldbe
          �������          treatedequallybothin the economic and social sphere.
          �������          Consequently these statesbeingoftheviewthatthe
          �������          exclusionofdaughters from participating in coparcenary
          �������          ownership merelybyreasonoftheirsexwasunjust,
          �������          brought��          about��          a��          change��          inrespectofMitakshara
          �������          coparcenary property and extended the rightbybirthin
          �������          coparcenary propertytothedaughtersalso.Improving
          �������          their economic conditions and social status by giving them
          �������          right by birth equal to thatofsonswasalongfelt
          �������          socialneedasit would eradicate the baneful system of
          �������          dowry by positive measures.Thepracticeofdowryhas
          �������          emerged as a major social evil in contemporary India.The
          �������          gravityofthesocial evil is reflected all over in our
          �������          country.The Dowry Prohibition Act of1961passedwith
          �������          the ostensible idea of checking the evil has almost proved
          �������          to be an ineffective legislation.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Asperthelawpassed by four of these states,
          �������          (Kerala law beingdifferent)inaJointHinduFamily
          �������          governedbyMitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener
          �������          by birth becomes a coparcener in her own right in the same
          �����                    ��mannerasthesonandhasthesamerightsinthe
          �������          coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been
          �������          ason,inclusive of the right to claim survivorship, and
          �������          is subject to the sameliabilitiesanddisabilitiesin
          �������          respect thereto as the son.Of course, this change in the
          �������          lawisprospectiveanddaughtersmarried prior to the
          �������          coming into force of the law have been excluded.��          Alist
          �������          ofthelegislationpassed by the five states is set out
          �������          below and the legislation is annexed as Annexed `IV'.
                                       
          �������          (1) The Joint HinduFamilySystem(Abolition)Act,
          ���������������          1975, Kerala.
                                       
          �������          (2) The Hindu Succession(AndhraPradeshAmendment)
          ���������������          Act, 1986
          �������          (3) TheHinduSuccession(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
          �������          thattheyare more or less couched in the same language,
          �������          though the Kerala model is different.��          TheKeralaJoint
          �������          HinduFamilySystem(Abolition) Act, 1975 abolished the
          �������          right of birth of males under the Mitaksharaaswellas
          �������          the Marumakkattayam law, following the Report of the Hindu
          �������          Committee in connection with the Hindu Code Bill Section 3
          �������          oftheKeralaAct States that after its commencement, a
          �������          righttoclaimanyinterestinanypropertyofan
          �������          ancestor,during his or her life time founded on the mere
          �������          fact that the claimant wasborninthefamilyofthe
          �������          ancestor, shall not be recognised.Thus the Act is wholly
          �������          prospectiveandfailsto confirm rights on daughters in
          �������          the existing coparcenary property unlike the Andhramodel
          �������          legislation.��          Section4(i)ofthe 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 partitionhadtakenplaceandeach
          �������          holdinghisor her share separately.7 The major drawback
          �������          in the legislation is that it fails to protecttheshare
          �������          ofthedaughterfrombeing defeated by the making of a
          �������          testamentary or other disposition.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Theapproachoftheother State Legislature is
          �������          strikingly different.��          Itelevatesadaughtertothe
          �������          positionof a coparcener in a Mitakshara coparcenary i.e.
          �������          succession by survivorship.
                                       
          �������                    ������          The above mentioned state amendments to theHindu
          �������          Succession Act 1956, thus considerably altered the concept
          �������          of theMitakshara coparcenary.Once a daughter becomes a
          �������          coparcener she continues to be member of thenataljoint
          �������          family even after her marriage.This has introduced a far
          �������          reaching changeinthelawof a joint family.Section
          �������          29-A of the Andhra Pradesh,TamilNaduandMaharashtra
          �������          Actsand Section 6A of the Karnataka Act states that in a
          �������          JointHinduFamilygovernedbyMitaksharalaw,��          the
          �������          daughter��          of��          acoparcenershallbybirthbecomea
          �������          coparcener in her own right in the same mannerasason
          �������          andhavethesame rights in the coparcenary property as
          �������          she would have had if she had been a son inclusive ofthe
          �������          righttoclaimby survivorship; and shall be subject to
          �������          the same liabilities and disabilities inrespectthereto
          �������          as a son.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Under the Amending Acts the eldest daughter like a
          �������          sonwillbeentitled to be a Karta of the Joint Family,
          �������          and will by virtue of that position exercise the rightto
          �������          spendtheincomefor joint family purposes and alienate
          �������          the joint family properties for legal necessity or benefit
          �������          of theestate.���          However,undertheShastricLaw,a
          �������          daughter on marriage ceases to be a member of the parental
          �������          family,butthe Amending Acts have changed her position,
          �������          which is quite alien to Hindu patriarchal notions.Though
          �������          herpositionasdefactomanagerwasrecognizedwhen
          �������          mothersactedas guardians of their minor sons after the
          �������          death of their husbands,thedejureconfermentofthe
          �������          right eluded her.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Theaspectofsuccessionand joint family fall
          �������          under the concurrent list entry 5 contained in the Seventh
          �������          Schedule of the Constitution and both the Centreaswell
          �������          as theStatescanlegislatein this field.It is also
          �������          noted that the five Statesmentionedabovehavepassed
          �������          their enactmentswiththeassentof the President.In
          �������          fact, itwouldappeartousthatinsteadofhaving
          �������          piecemeallegislationsforeffectingamendments in the
          �������          Hindu Succession Act by the states, there is a strong case
          �������          for a uniform civil code in thisareagoverningatleast
          �������          HinduSocietyandprovidingequality in the family the
          �������          child isborninto,irrespectiveofthesex.����          Our
          �������          suggestionwouldtacklenot only the evils of dowry but
          �������          also the longing for a son andwouldpromotethesmall
          �������          family norm and check the population explosion.
                                       
          �������                    ������          However,theStateAmendmentstothe HSA have
          �������          given rise to various questions which need to beanswered
          �������          beforeauniformlawisbroughtforall the States.
          �������          First, the Amendment has excluded the right of adaughter
          �������          fromthecoparcenaryproperty, who was married prior to
          ������                    the commencement of the amending Act.��          Theprovisionis
          �������          similar in all the Acts and the Karnataka provision is set
          �������          out as under:
                                       
          �������          6(d) "Nothinginclause (b) shall apply to a daughter
          ���������������          married prior to or to a partition which hadbeen
          ���������������          effected��          before��          the��          commencement��          ofHindu
          ���������������          Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1994."
                                       
          �������                    ������          The reasons for exclusion of thealreadymarried
          �������          daughter appear to be sociological and the fact that dowry
          �������          might have been given at the time of marriage.This dowry
          �������          mightinsomecases have included immovable and movable
          �������          property apart from jewellery.��          Buttheremaybemany
          �������          caseswherenothing          hasbeengiven and there does not
          �������          appear to be any cogent reason for discriminatingbetween
          �������          a married and an unmarried daughter.Excluding a daughter
          �������          marriedbeforethedate of commencement of the Amending
          �������          Acts is wrong in our opinionasalldaughtersmustbe
          �������          treated equally,andatparwithsons.��          By denying a
          �������          married daughter equal rights in coparcenaryproperty,a
          �������          largenumberoffemalesaregettingleftout of the
          �����                    ��benefit.
                                       
          �������                    ������          A recent Supreme Court decision in SavitaSamvedi
          �������          v.��          UnionofIndia8lendssupportto the view that a
          �������          distinction between a married andanunmarrieddaughter
          �������          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 liabletobestruck
          �������          down underArticle14 of the Constitution.Referring to
          �������          the distinction drawn by the circularbetweenamarried
          �������          and an unmarrieddaughter,Punchhi,J.observed:"The
          �������          eligibility of a married daughter must be placed at apar
          �������          withanunmarrieddaughter(for she too must have been
          �������          once in that State) so as to claim the benefit....."
                                       
          �������                    ������          The Preamble to the AmendingActsindicatesthe
          �������          objective��          as��          theremovalofdiscriminationagainst
          �������          daughters inherent in the mitakshare coparcenaryandthe
          �������          eradicationofthebanefulsystem of dowry by positive
          �������          measures thus ameliorating the condition of womeninthe
          �������          human society.���          Thisis only a subsidiary or collateral
          �������          objective and it cannotg be said thattheclassification
          �������          drawnbythe Amending Acts bears a rational relationship
          �������          to the objective sought to be achieved.9
                                       
          �������                    ������          Thus cl.(d) ofS.6AoftheKarnatakaActand
          �������          clause(iv)of29Aoftheother three Acts should be
          �������          deleted and the main object of the Acts should be onlyto
          �������          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 twostates,
          �������          onewhichisgoverned by the Amending Act and the other
          �������          not so governed, itmayresultintwoKartas,onea
          �������          daughter andthe other a son.Difficulties pertaining to
          �������          territorial application of Amending Act and the LexSitus
          �������          principle willalsoarise.��          Thus is the need for an all
          �������          India Act or Uniform Civil Code more immediate.
                                       
          �������                    ������          It is importanttonoticewhattheimpactof
          �������          Section6-Aof the Karnataka Act and Section 29-A of the
          �������          other three Acts would beonSection23oftheHindu
          �������          Seccession Act,1956.Section 23 of the Hindu Succession
          �������          Act 1956 provides that on the death of Hindu intestatein
          �������          case of a dwelling house wholly occupied by members of the
          �������          jointfamily,afemaleheiris not entitled to demand
          �������          partition unless the maleheirchoosestodoso;and
          �������          secondlyitcurtailseventheright of residence of a
          �������          daughterbystatingthatwheresuchfemaleheiris
          �������          daughter, she shall be entitled to a right of residence in
          �������          thedwellinghouse          only if she is unmarried or has been
          �������          desertedbyorseparatedfromherhusbandorisa
          �������          widow."10Whether these restrictions will be operative in
          �������          the case of female coparceners will have to beconsidered
          �������          andwemustfocusontheinterpretation of the words
          �������          `Hindu intestate `and'`heirs'excludecoparcenersand
          �������          coparcenary interestsfrom their scope.Section 6 of the
          �������          Hindu Succession Act retains theruleofdevolutionof
          ����                    ���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
          �������          rightsasmales in the matter of asking for partitioning
          �������          and allotmenttothemoftheirshareincoparcenary
          �������          property.��          ThusSection23from the HSA may need to be
          �������          deleted altogether.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          Itisnoteworthy, that there is hardly a
          �������          case of a daughter claiming equal rightstopropertyin
          �������          theparentalfamily,eventhoughher dowry may not be
          �������          equal totheson'sshare.���          Thisisduemainly��          to
          �������          overweighing consideration of modesty and desire for amity
          �������          and thefear of social disapproval.A study prepared for
          �������          the MinistryofEducationandSocialWelfareonthe
          �������          successionrightsofwomeninAndhra Pradesh, is very
          �������          revealing in this regard.11 It observed that 38percent
          �������          ofwomenin Godavari and 12 per cent of women in Krishna
          �������          districts reported considerations of familyprestige,27
          �������          percentof the respondents in both the districts reported
          �������          consideration of gettingbadnameamongrelativesand
          �������          others,for not taking resort to courts of law in getting
          �������          their dueshareinproperty.���          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.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Inviewof 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, itcannotbe
          �������          realzedbya section of women socialized in tradtions of
          �������          inequality.Thus there is need to social awareness and to
          �������          educatepeopletochangetheirattitudetowardsthe
          �������          concept ofgender equality.The need of the hour is also
          �������          to focus attention on changingthesocialattitudesin
          �������          favourofequalityforallby enacting a uniform law.
          �������          This is what theLawCommissionsuggestsandwehave
          �������          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;
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          AndWhereasthe exclusion of the daughter from
          �������          participation in coparcenary ownership merelybyreason
          �������          of her sex is contrary thereto;
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          AndWhereassuch 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 hasto
          �������          be��          eradicated��          by��          positive��          measures��          which��          will
          �������          simultaneously ameliorate the condition of womeninthe
          �������          Hindu society;
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          Beitenacted by Parliament in the fifty-first
          �������          year of the Republic of India as follows:
                                       
          �������          Short Title, Extent and Commencement
          �������                    ������          1.(1) This Act maybecalledtheHinduSuccession
          ����������������          (Amendment) Act, 2000.
          �������                    ������          (2) Itextendstothe whole of India except Jammu
          ����������������          and Kashmir;
          �������                    ������          (3) It shall be deemed to have comeintoforceon
          ����������������          the day of ________________, 1998
                                       
          �������                    ������          AfterSection6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 the
          �������          following sections shall be insertedbyvirtueofthe
          �������          Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1998 (.....of 1998).
                                       
          �������          6A.���          Notwithstandinganything contained in section 6
          �������          of this Act -
                                       
          �������                    ������                    Equalrightsto��          daughters��          in��          coparcenary
          ����������������          property
                                       
          �������                    ������          (i) inaJoint 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 thesamerightsin
          ����������������          thecoparcenaryproperty as she would have had
          ����������������          if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to
          ����������������          claim by survivorship, and shall besubjectto
          ����������������          the same liabilities and disabilities in respect
          ����������������          thereto as the son;
                                       
          ����                    ���          ������          (ii) ata partition in such a joint Hindu Family the
          ����������������          coparcenary property shall be so dividedasto
          ����������������          allottoadaughterthesameshareasis
          ����������������          allotable to a son.
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Provided��          that          the��          share��          which���          a
          ����������������          pre-deceasedsonorapre-deceaseddaughter
          ����������������          would have got at the partition if he or she had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of the partition shall be
          ����������������          allottedtothesurviving��          child��          of��          such
          ����������������          predeceased��          son��          or��          of��          suchpre-deceased
          ����������������          daughter;
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Provided further that the shareallotable
          ����������������          tothe pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son
          �������                    ���������or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of thepartition,shall
          ����������������          beallottedtothe child of such pre-deceased
          ����������������          childofthepre-deceasedsonor��          of��          the
          ����������������          pre-deceased daughter as the case may be;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iii) anypropertytowhicha female Hindu becomes
          ����������������          entitled by virtue of the provisionsofclause
          ����������������          (i)shallbe held by her with the incidents of
          ����������������          coparcenaryownershipandshallberegarded
          ����������������          notwithstandinganything contained in this Bill
          ����������������          or anyother law for the time being in force,as
          ����������������          propertycapable 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 thecommencement
          ����������          oftheHindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000 having
          ����������          at the time of her death an interest inaMitakshara
          ����������          coparcenaryproperty,herinterestin the property
          ����������          shall devolve by survivorship as in the case ofmales
          ����������          uponthe 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 interestofthe
          ����������          deceasedin 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 propertythatwould
          ����������          havebeenallottedtoherifapartition of the
          ����������          property had taken place immediately before herdeath
          ����������          irrespectiveofwhethershewasentitled to claim
          ����������          partition or not.
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Nothing contained in the proviso to this section
          ����������          shall be construed as enabling apersonwho,before
          ����������          thedeathofdeceased,hasseparatedhimselfor
          ����������          herself from the coparcenary, or anyofhisorher
          ����������          heirstoclaimon intestacy a share in the interest
          ����������          referred to therein.
                                       
          �������          6C. Preferentialrighttoacquire��          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 carriedonbyhimorher,whether
          ����������                    ������solelyorinconjunction with others devolves
          ����������������          under section 6A or section 6B upon two ormore
          ����������������          heirsandanyoneofsuch heirs proposes to
          ����������������          transfer his or her interest in the propertyor
          ��                    ��������������business,���          the���          other��          heirs��          shall��          have
          ����������������          preferentialrighttoacquirethe��          interest
          ����������������          proposed to be transferred.
                                       
          �������          (2)          ��          Theconsiderationfor which any interest
          ����������������          inthe          propertyofthe��          deceased��          may��          be
          ����������������          transferredunderthissectionshallin the
          ����������������          absence of any agreement between the parties, be
          ����������������          determined by the court,onapplicationbeing
          ����������������          madetoitinthis behalf, and if any person
          ����������������          proposing to acquire the interest is not willing
          ����������������          toacquireit��          for��          the��          consideration��          so
          ����������������          determined,suchperson 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
          ����������������          heirwhooffersthe highest consideration for
          ����������                    ������the transfer shall be preferred.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Explanation:- In this section `court' means the court                  
          ����������          within the limits of whose jurisdiction theimmovable
          ����������          property is situate or the business is carried on, and
          ����������          includes          anyothercourt which the State Government
          ����������          may, by notification in the officialGazettespecify
          ����������          in this behalf.
                                       
          ��������                                FOOT NOTE                              
                                       
          �������          1.����                    M.Indira Devi,"Woman'sAssertionofLegal
          ����������������          Rightsto Ownership of Property" p.168 in Women
          ����������������          AND Few, Contemporary Problems, (1994) edt by L.
          ����������������          Sarkar & B.Sivaramayya/
                                       
          �������          2�����                    Mayne, TreatiesonHinduLaw&Usage,14th
          ����������������          Edition ed.by Alladi Kuppuswami, (1996)
                                       
          �������          3.������������          AIR 1978 SC 1239
                                       
          �������          4.������������          AIR 1985 SC 716
                                       
          �������          5.������������          Ibid.
          �������          6.����                    RatnaKapurand��          Brenda��          Cossman,��          Feminist
          ����������������          Engagements with Law in India (1996)
          �������          7.����                    B.����          Sivaramayya,��          "Coparcenary��          Rights��          to
          ����������������          DaughtersConstitutionalandinterpretational
          ����������������          issues" (1997) 3 SCC(J), page 25.
          �������          8.����                    (1996) 2 SCC 380
          �������          9.������������          Ibid
          �������          10.���          Proviso to section 23 of HSA.
          �������          11. DepartmentofCooperation & Applied Economics,
          ����������������          AndhraUniversity,AgriculturalGrowthRural
          ����������������          Developmentand 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 familysystemamong
          ���������������          Hindus in the state of Kerala.
                                       
          ��������          Preamble:- Whereas it is expedient to abolish the
          ���������������          jointfamily system among Hindus in the state of
          ���������������          Kerala
                                       
          ��������          Be it enacted in theTwenty-SixthYearofthe
          ���������������          Republic of India as follows:-
                                       
          �������                    ������          1.�����          Short title, extent and commencement -
          �������                    ������                    (1)TheActmaybecalled the Kerala
          �����������������������          JointHinduFamilySystem(Abolition)
          �����������������������          Act, 1975.
          �������                    ������                    (2)Itextendstothewhole State of
          �����������������������          Kerala.
          �������                    ������          ** (3) It shall come into force on such date
          �����������������������          as the Governmentmay,bynotification
          �����������������������          the Gazette, appoint.
                                       
                                       
                                       
          �������          2.����          Definition-Inthis Act, "joint Hindu family"
          �������          means any Hindu family withcommunityofpropertyand
          ���                    ����includes-
                                       
          �������                    ������          *The��          aboveActreceivedtheassentofthe
          �������          President on the 10thdayofAugust,KeralaGazette,
          �������          Extraordinary No.484, dated 17.8.1976.
                                       
          �������                    ������          **TheActcameintoforce on 1-12-1976 as per
          �������          notification No.17469/Leg (A)2/69 Law,dated18.11.76
          �������          S.R.O.1185/76.K.G.No.46, dated 23.11.1976.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    (1)���          atarward or tavazhi governed by
          �����������������������          the Madras Marumakkattayam Act, 1932, the
          �����������������������          Travancore Nayar Act,IIof1100,the
          �����������������������          TravancoreEzhavaActIII of 1100, the
          �����������������������          NanjinadVellalaAct��          of��          1101,��          the
          �����������������������          TravancorekshatriyaActof1108, the
          ���������������                    ��������Travancorekrishnavaka��          Marumakkattayam
          �����������������������          Act,VIIof1115, the Cochin Nayar Act
          �����������������������          XXXIX��          of��          1113,���          or���          the���          Cochin
          �����������������������          Marumakkattayam Act, XXXIII of 1113;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    (2)���          akutumbaor kavaru governed by
          �����������������������          Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    (3)���          an illom governed bytheKerala
          �����������������������          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 commencementof
          �����������������������          thisActno right to claim any interest
          �����������                    ������������in any property of an ancestor during his
          �����������������������          or her lifetime which is foundedonthe
          �����������������������          merefactthat the claimant was born in
          �����������������������          thefamilyoftheancestorshallbe
          ���                    ��������������������recognized in any court.
          �������                    ������                  
          ��������          ������          (4) Jointtenancyto be replaced by tenancy
          �����������������������          in common --
          �������                    ������                  
          ��������          ������                    (1) All membersofanundividedHindu
          �����������������������          familygovernedbytheMitakshara law
          �����������������������          holding any coparcenary propertyonthe
          �����������������������          daythis Act comes into force shall with
          �����������������������          effect from that day, be deemedtohold
          �����������������������          it as tenants-in-common as if a partition
          �����������������������          hadtaken place among all the members of
          �����������������������          that undivided Hindu familyasrespects
          �����������������������          suchproperty 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 maintenanceor
          �����������������������          the right to marriage or funeral expenses
          �����������������������          outofthecoparcenary property or the
          �����������������������          righttoresidence,ifany,if��          the
          �����������������������          membersofanundividedHindu family,
          �����������������������          otherthanpersonswho          ��have��          become
          �����������������������          entitled to hold their shares separately,
          �����������������������          &any such right can be enforced if this
          �����������������������          Act had not been passed.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    (2)���          AllmembersofajointHindu
          ���������                    ��������������family,otherthananundivided Hindu
          �����������������������          family referred toinsub-section(1),
          �����������������������          holdingany joint family property on the
          �����������������������          day of this Act comes into force,shall,
                    ����������������������witheffectfromthat day be deemed to
          �����������������������          hold it astenants-in-common,asifa
          �����������������������          partition of such property per capita had
          �����������������������          takenplace among all the members of the
          �����������������������          familylivingontheday��          aforesaid,
          �����������������������          whethersuchmemberswereentitled to
          �����������������������          claim such partition or not under the law
          �����������������������          applicable to them, and as i.e.each one
          �����������������������          of the membersisholdinghisorher
          �����������������������          share separately as full owner thereof.
                                       
          ��������          NOTES
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Byvirtueofthis Act the joint family
          ���������������          systemoftheMarumakkattayam��          Tarwad��          stood
          ���������������          abolished��          bytheoperationoflawandthe
          ���������������          propertiesofthe��          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
          ���������������          propertyin lieu of her right to maintenance, or
          ���������������          marriage expenses, then only she is entitled to a
          ���������������          shareintheproperty.2Wheretherewas��          a
          ���������������          partitioninajointfamily consisting of the
          ���������������          asessee, his wife and sonpriortothecoming
          ���������������          intoforceofthisAct,it was held that the
          ���������������          property held by the assessee was hisindividual
          ���������������          propertyandthewifeisnot entitled to any
          ���������������          share in it.Therefore, the entireincomefrom
          ���������������          thepropertyin the hands of the assessee is to
          ���������������          be assessed in his hand as an individual.3
                                       
          ��������                    �����          After passing of JointFamilyAbolition
          ���������������          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
          ���������������          HinduSuccessionAct)andwhodied after the
          ���������������          passingofJointFamily��          Abolition��          Act��          on
          ���������������          1.12.1976.��          Italso does not become inoperative
          ���������������          in respect of persons who were born onorafter
          ���������������          18.6.1956 but before 1.12.1976 and who died on or
          ���������������          after that date.
                                       
          �������                    ������          5. Ruleofpiousobligations of Hindu son
          �����������������������          abrogated.-
                                       
          �������                    ������                    (1)���          After thecommencementofthis
          �����������������������          Act,no court shall, save as provided in
          �����������������������          sub-sections (2) recognize anyrightto
          �����������������������          proceed��          against��          ason,grandsonor
          �����������������������          great-grandson for therecoveryofany
          �����������������������          debtdue from his father, grandfather or
          �����������������������          great grandfather oranyalienationof
          �����������������������          property in respect of or in satisfaction
          �����������������������          ofanysuchdebton the ground of the
          �����������������������          pious obligation under the Hindu law, the
          �����������������������          son,grandsonorgreat��          grandson��          to
          ���������������                    ��������discharge any such debt.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    (2)���          In��          the��          case��          of��          any��          debt
          �����������������������          contractedbeforethecommencementof
          �����������������������          this���          Act,���          nothing���          contained��          in
          �����������������������          sub-section(1) shall affect-
                                       
          �������                    ������                    (a) therightofanycreditorto
          �������������������������������          proceed against the son, grandson
          �������������������������������          orgreatgrandson,as the case
          �������������������������������          may be; or
          �������                    ������                    (b) any alienation made in respect of
          �������������������������������          or in satisfaction of,anysuch
          �������������������������������          debt,��          andanysuchrightor
          �������������������������������          alienation shallbeenforceable
          ������������������������������                    under���          the���          rule��          of��          pious
          �������������������������������          obligation in the same manner and
          �������������������������������          to the same extentasitwould
          �������������������������������          have been enforceable if this Act
          ����������������������                    ���������had not been passed.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Explanation- Forthepurposes of sub-section
          �������������������������������          (2),��          the��          expression���          "son",
          �������������������������������          "grandson"or"greatgrandson"
          �������������������������������          shall be deemed to refertothe
          �������������������������������          son,grandson or great grandson,
          �������������������������������          as the case may be, who wasborn
          �������������������������������          or���          adopted���          prior��          to��          the
          �����������������������                    ��������commencement of this Act.
                                       
          ��������          The expression "Hindu Law" in this section has to
          ���������������          be understoodinabroadsenseasincluding
          ���������������          MarumakkattayamLawwhich is also part of Hindu
          ���������������          Law.4
                                       
          ������                              ������          6. Liabilityofmembersofjoint��          Hindu
          �����������������������          familyfordebtscontracted before Act
          �����������������������          not affected -                  
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Where a debt binding onajoint
          �����������������������          Hindufamilyhas been contracted before
          �����������������������          the commencement of this Act by Karnavan,
          �����������������������          Yejman, Manager or Karta, as the case may
          �����������������������          be,ofthe��          family,��          nothing��          herein
          �����������������������          containedshallaffect the liability of
          �����������������������          any member of the family to discharge any
          �����������������������          such debt and any such liabilitymaybe
          �����������������������          enforced��          againstalloranyofthe
          �����������������������          members liable, therefore,inthesame
          �����������������������          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
          �����������������������          inthis��          Act,��          any��          text,��          rule��          or
          �����������������������          interpretation of Hindu law or any custom
          �����������������������          orusagepartofthatlawinforce
          ��������������������                    ���immediately beforethecommencementof
          �����������������������          thisAct shall cease to have effect with
          �����������������������          respect to any matter for which provision
          �����������������������          is made in this Act.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    (2) The Acts mentioned intheschedule,
          �����������������������          insofar as they apply to the whole or
          �����������������������          any part oftheStateofKerala,are
          �����������������������          hereby repealed.
                                       
          �������          8.����                    ProclamationIX of 1124 and Act XVI 1961
          ��������                    ���������������to continue in force5
                                       
          ��������                    �����          Notwithstanding anythingcontainedin
          ���������������          thisActor in any other law for the time being
          ���������������          in force, Proclamation (IX of1124)dated29th
          ���������������          June,��          1949,promulgatedbytheMaharajaof
          ���������������          Cochin, asamendedbytheValiammaThampuran
          ���������������          KovilakamEstate and the Palace Fund (Partition)
          ���������������          and Act, the KeralaJointHinduFamilysystem
          ���������������          (Abolition)AmendmentAct1978and the valiamma
          ���������������          Thampuron���          Kovilakam���          Estate���          and���          Palace
          ���������������          Fund(Partition)5 1961 (16 of 1961), as amended by
          ���������������          thesaidAct, shall continue to be in force and
          ���������������          shall apply to the ValiammaThampuranKovilakam
          ���������������          Estate&thePalaceFundadministered by the
          ���������������          Board of Trustees appointed undersection3of
          ���������������          the said proclamation.
                                       
          �������          The Schedule
          �������          [See section 7(2)
          �������          Acts repealed
                                       
          �������                    ������          (1) The��          MadrasMarumakkathayamAct,1932
          �����������������������          (XXII of 1933);
          �������                    ������          (2) The Madras Aliyasantana Act,1949(IXof
          �����������������������          1949);
          �������                    ������          (3) The Travancore Nayar Act, II of 1100;
          �������                    ������          (4) The Travancore Ezhava Act, III of 1100;
          �������                    ������          (5) TheNanjinadVallala Act of 1101 (VI of
          �����������������������          1101);
          �������                    ������          (6) The TravancoreKshatriyaActof1108,
          �����������������������          (VII of 1108);
          �������                    ������          (7) The��������          Travancore�������          Krishnavaka
          �����������������������          Marumakkathayee Act, (VII of 1115);
          �������                    ������          (8) The Cochin Thiyya Act, VII of 1107;
          �������                    ������          (9) The Cochin Makkathayam ThiyyaAct,XVII
          �����������������������          of 1115;
          �������                    ������          (10) The Cochin Nayar Act, XXIX of 1113;
          �������                    ������          (11) The Cochin Marumakkathayam Act, XXXIII of
          �����������������������          1113;
          �������                    ������          (12) The Kerala NambudiriAct,1958(27of
          �����������������������          1958)
          ��������                                FOOT NOTES                              
                                       
          �������          1. WTOv 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 vChidambaram(RS)(1994)209ITR
          ���������������          531(Ker)distinguishing Surjit Lal Chhabda v CIT
          ���������������          (1975) 101 ITR 776 (SC): 1976(2) SCR 164; Krishna
          ���������������          Prasad(C)vCIT��          (1974)��          97��          ITR��          493(C);
          ���������������          Narendranath(NV)v CWT (1969) 74 ITR 190 (SC):
          ���������������          1970 SC 14: Gowli Bhddanna v CIT(1966)60ITR
          ���������������          293 (SC).
                                       
          �������          4. Chellamma v Narayana 1993 Ker 146 (FB).
                                       
          �������          5. Bysection8ofValiammaThampuram Kovilakam
          ���������������          Estate and the Palace Fund(Partition)andthe
          ���������������          KeralaJointHinduFamilySystem(Abolition)
          ���������������          AmendmentAct,1978(Act15of1978)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 alwaystohave
          ���������������          been inserted.
          �����������������������������������������������������������                                                                                      
                                       
                      ANDHRA PRADESH ACTS, ORDINANCES                              
                                    AND REGULATIONS, ETC.                              
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          Thefollowing Act of Andhra Pradesh Legislative
          �������          Assembly which was reserved by the Governor onthe10th
          �������          October,1985fortheconsideration and assent of the
          �������          President received the assent ofthePresidentonthe
          �������          16thMay,1986andthesaidassentis hereby first
          �������          published on the 22nd May, 1986intheAndhraPradesh
          �������          Gazette for general information.
                                       
          ��������          ACT NO. 13 OF 1986
                                       
          �������                    ������                    AnActto amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
          ����������������          initsapplicationtotheStateofAndhra
          ����������������          Pradesh.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    Whereas the Constitution of India has proclaimed
          ����������������          equality before the law as a Fundamental Right;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    AndWhereasthe exclusion of the daughter from
          ����������������          participation in coparcenary ownership merely by
          ����������������          reason of her sex is contrary thereto;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    And Whereas such exclusion of thedaughterhas
          ����������������          ledtothe creation of the socially pernicious
          ����������������          dowry system with its attendant social ills.
          �������                    ������                    AndWhereas this baneful system of dowry has to
          ����������������          be eradicated by positivemeasureswhichwill
          ����������������          simultaneously ameliorate the condition of women
          ����������������          in the Hindu society;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    BeitenactedbyLegislative 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) ThisActmaybecalledthe Hindu Succession
          ����������������          (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986
          �������                    ������          (2) It extends to the whole of the StateofAndhra
          ����������������          Pradesh.
          �������                    ������          (3) Itshallbedeemed to have come into force on
          ����������������          the 5th September, 1985.
                                       
          �������                    ������          2 Insertion of a new Chapter II-A inCentralAct
          ����������������          30 of 1956
                                       
          �������                    ������                    In the Hindu Succession Act,1956(hereinafter
          ����������������          referredto 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 Section6
          ����������������          of this Act-
                                       
          �������                    ������          (i) in a Joint Hindu family governedbyMitakshara
          ����������������          Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth
          ����������������          become a coparcener in her own right in the same
          ����������������          mannerastheson and have the same rights in
          ����������������          the coparcenary property as she wouldhavehad
          ����������������          if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to
          ����������������          claimbysurvivorship, and shall be subject to
          ����������������          the same liabilities and disabilities in respect
          ����������������          thereto as the son;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (ii) ata partition in such a joint Hindu Family the
          ����������������          coparcenary property shall be so dividedasto
          ����������������          allottoadaughterthesameshareasis
          ����������������          allotable to a son.
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Provided��          that��          the��          share��          which���          a
          ����������������          pre-deceased          sonorapre-deceaseddaughter
          ����������������          would have got at the partition if he or she had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of the partition shall be
          ����������������          allottedtothesurviving��          child��          of��          such
          ����������������          predeceased��          son��          or��          of��          suchpre-deceased
          ����������������          daughter;
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Provided further that the shareallotable
          ����������������          tothe pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son
          ����������������          or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of thepartition,shall
          ����������������          beallottedtothe child of such pre-deceased
          ����������������          childofthepre-deceasedsonor��          of��          the
          ��������                    ��������pre-deceased daughter as the case may be;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iii) anypropertytowhicha female Hindu becomes
          ����������������          entitled by virtue of the provisionsofclause
          ����������������          (i)shallbe held by her with the incidents of
          ��������                    ��������coparcenaryownershipandshallberegarded
          ����������������          notwithstandinganythingcontained in this Act
          ����������������          or any other law for the time being in force, as
          ����������������          property capable of being disposed of by herby
          ����������������will or other testamentary disposition;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iv) nothing in clause (ii) shall apply to a daughter
          ����������������          married prior to or toapartitionwhichhad
          ����������������          beeneffectedbefore the commencement of Hindu
          ���                    �������������Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          Interest to devolve by survivorship on death
                                       
          �������                    ������                    29-B��          When��          a��          femaleHindudiesafterthe
          ����������������          commencement oftheHinduSuccession(Andhra
          ������������                    ����PradeshAmendment) Act, 1986 having at the time
          ����������������          ofherdeathaninterestina��          Mitakshara
          ����������������          coparcenary��          property,��          herinterestinthe
          ����������������          property shall devolve by survivorship uponthe
          ����                    ������������survivingmembers of the coparcenary and not in
          ����������������          accordance this Act.
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Provided that if the deceased had left any
          ����������������          child orchildofapre-deceasedchildthe
          ����������������          interestofthedeceasedintheMitakshara
          ����������������          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��          purposesofthis
          ����������������          section,theinterestof��          a��          female��          Hindu
          ����������������          Mitaksharacoparcener shall be deemed to be the
          ����������������          share inthepropertythatwouldhavebeen
          ����������������          allottedtoher if a partition of the property
          ����������������          had taken placeimmediatelybeforeherdeath
          ����������������          irrespectiveofwhethershewasentitled to
          ����������������          claim partition or not.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    Explanation 2:Nothing contained intheproviso
          ����������������          to this section shall be construed as enabling a
          ����������������          personwho,beforethe death of deceased, had
          ����������������          separated��          himself��          or��          herself��          from���          the
          ����������������          coparcenaryor any of his or her heirs to claim
          ����������������          on intestacy a share in the interest referred to
          ����������������          therein.
                                       
          �������          29-C Preferentialrighttoacquire��          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,whethersolelyorin
          ����������������������          conjunctionwithothersdevolves, under
          ����������������������          section 29A or section 29-Bupontwoor
          ����������������������          moreheirsandanyoneofsuch heirs
          ��                    ��������������������proposes to transfer his orherinterest
          ����������������������          inthepropertyorbusiness, the other
          ����������������������          heirs shallhavepreferentialrightto
          ����������������������          acquire��          the��          interestproposedtobe
          ����������������������          transferred.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          (2)          ���          Theconsideration��          for��          which��          any
          ����������������������          interestinthe property of the deceased
          ����������������������          maybetransferredunderthissection
          ����������������������          shallintheabsenceofany agreement
          ����������������������          between the parties, be determined bythe
          ����������������������          court,on application being made to it in
          ����������������������          this behalf, and if anypersonproposing
          �������������������                    ���toacquire the interest is not willing to
          ����������������������          acquireitforthe��          consideration��          so
          ����������������������          determined, such person shall be liable to
          ����������������������          payallcostsofor incidential to the
          �����������                    �����������application.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          (3)          ���          Iftherearetwoormore��          heirs,
          ����������������������          proposingtoacquireany interest under
          ����������������������          this section, thatheirwhooffersthe
          ����������������������          highestconsiderationforthetransfer
          ����������������������          shall be preferred.
                                       
          �������                    ��������������                    Explanation:-��          Inthissection`court'
          ����������������������          means the court within the limits of whose
          ����������������������          jurisdictiontheimmovablepropertyis
          ����                    ������������������situate or the business is carried on, and
          ����������������������          includesanyother court which the State
          ����������������������          Government may,bynotificationinthe
          ����������������������          official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
                                       
                      TAMIL NADU ACTS & ORDINANCES                                                                            
                                       
          �������                    ��������������          The following Act of Andhra PradeshLegislative
          �������          Assembly received the assent of the President on the 15th
          �������          January,��          1990andisherebypublishedforgeneral
          �������          information.
                                       
          ��������          ACT NO.1 OF 1990
                                       
          �������                    ������                    AnActfurthertoamend the Hindu Succession
          ����������������          Act, 1956, in its application totheStateof
          ����������������          Tamil Nadu.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    WHEREAS the Constitution of India has proclaimed
          ����������������          equality before the law as a Fundamental Right;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    ANDWHEREASthe exclusion of the daughter from
          ����������������          participation in coparcenary ownership merely by
          ����������������          reason of her sex is contrary thereto;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    AND WHEREAS such exclusion of thedaughterhas
          ����������������          ledtothe creation of the socially pernicious
          ����������������          dowry system with its attendant social evils.
                                       
          �������                    ������                    AND WHEREAS this baneful system of dowry hasto
          ����������������          beeradicatedbypositive measures which will
          ����������������          simultaneouslyamelioratetheconditions��          of
          ����������������          women in the Hindu society;
                                       
          �������                    ������                    BeitenactedbyLegislative Assembly of the
          ����������������          State of Tamil Nadu in the Fortieth Year ofthe
          ����������������          Republic of India as follows:
                                       
          ��������          Short Title, Extent and Commencement
                                       
          �������                    ������          1.(1) This Act maybecalledtheHinduSuccession
          ����������������          (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989
          �������                    ������          (2) Itextendstothe whole of the State of Tamil
          ����������������          Nadu
          �������                    ������          (3) It shall be deemed to have comeintoforceon
          ����������������          the 25th day of March, 1989.
                                       
          �������          Insertion of new Chapter II-A
                                       
          �������                    ������          2. IntheHindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter
          ����������������          referred to as the Principal Act), after Chapter
          ����������������          -II, the following chaptershallbeinserted,
          ����������������          namely:-
                                       
          ��������������������������������������������������������                    ����                                                                            
                                       
                      CHAPTER - II-A.                              
                                                                                               
                      Succession by survivorship                              
                                                                                               
                      Equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property                              
                                                                                               
          �������                    ������          29A.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section6
          ����������������          of this Act.
                                       
          �������                    ������          (i) inaJoint 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 thesamerightsin
          ����������������          thecoparcenaryproperty as she would have had
          ����������������          if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to
          ����������������          claim by survivorship; and shall besubjectto
          ������                    ����������the same liabilities and disabilities in respect
          ����������������          thereto as the son;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (ii) ata partition in such a joint Hindu Family the
          ����������������          coparcenary property shall be so dividedasto
          ����������������          allottoa          daughterthesameshareasis
          ����������������          allotable to a son.
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Provided��          that��          the��          share��          which���          a
          ����������������          pre-deceasedsonorapre-deceaseddaughter
          ����������������          would have got at the partition if he or she had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of the partition shall be
          ����������������          allottedtothesurviving��          child��          of��          such
          ����������������          predeceased��          son��          or��          of��          suchpre-deceased
          ����������������          daughter;
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Provided further that the shareallotable
          ����������������          tothe pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son
          ����������������          or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had
          ����������������          been alive at the time of thepartition,shall
          ����������������          beallotted          tothe child of such pre-deceased
          ����������������          childofthepre-deceasedsonor��          of��          the
          ����������������          pre-deceased daughter as the case may be;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iii) anypropertytowhicha female Hindu becomes
          ����������������          entitled by virtue of the provisionsofclause
          ����������������          (i)shallbe held by her with the incidents of
          ����������������          coparcenary ownershipandshallberegarded,
          ����������������          notwithstandinganythingcontained in this Act
          ����������������          or any other law for the time being in force, as
          ����������������          property capable of being disposed of by herby
          ����������������          will or other testamentary disposition;
                                       
          �������                    ������          (iv) nothing��          inthischaptershallapplytoa
          ����������������          daughtermarriedbeforethecommencementof
          ����������������          HinduSuccession(TamilNaduAmendment) Act,
          ����������������          1986.
                                       
          �������                    ������          (v) Nothinginclause(ii)shallsupplyto��          a
          ����������������          partitionwhichhadbeeneffected 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��          femaleHindudiesafterthe
          ����������                    ������commencement of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu
          ����������������          Amendment) Act, 1989 having at the timeofher
          ����������������          death,aninterest in a Mitakshara coparcenary
          ����������������          property by virtue of the provisions ofSection
          ��                    ��������������29-A, her interest in the property shall devolve
          ����������������          bysurvivorshipuponthe surviving members of
          ����������������          the coparcenary and not in accordance withthis
          ����������������          Act.
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Provided that if the deceased had left any
          ����������������          childorchildofapre-deceased child, the
          ����������������          interestofthedeceasedintheMitakshara
          ����������������          coparcenary���          property���          shall���          devolve��          by
          ����������������          testamentary orintestatesuccession,asthe
          ����������������          case��          may��          be,underthisActandnotby
          ����������������          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 theproperty
          ����������������          thatwouldhavebeenallottedtoherif a
          ����������������          partitionofthepropertyhadtaken��          place
          ����������������          immediatelybeforeherdeath, irrespective of
          ��                    ��������������whether she was entitled to claimpartitionor
          ����������������          not.
                                       
          ��������          Explanation II:������          Nothing contained intheprovisoto
          �������                    ������                    this section shall be construedasenablinga
          ����������������          personwho,beforethe 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��          toacquirepropertyin
          ����������������          certain cases
                                       
          �������                    ������          (1)          ���          Where, after the commencement of the Hindu
          ����������������          Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989,an
          ����������������          interest��          in��          anyimmovablepropertyofan
          ����������������          intestate or in any business carried onbyhim
          ����������������          orher,whethersolely or in conjunction with
          ����������������          others, devolves under section29Aorsection
          ����������������          29Bupontwo or more heirs and any one of such
          ����������������          heirs proposes to transfer his orherinterest
          ����������������          inthepropertyorbusiness, the other heirs
          ����������������          shall have preferentialrighttoacquirethe
          ����������������          interest proposed to be transferred.
                                       
          �������                    ������          (2)          ���          Theconsiderationfor which any interest
          ����������������          inthepropertyofthe��          deceased��          may��          be
          ����������������          transferredunderthissectionshall, in the
          ����������������          absence of any agreement between the parties, be
          ����������������          determined by thecourtonapplicationbeing
          ����������������          madetoitinthisbehalf and if any person
          ����������������          proposing to acquire the interest is not willing
          ����������������          toacquireit��          for��          the��          consideration��          so
          ����������������          determined,suchperson shall be liable to pay
          ����������������          all costs of or incidential, to the application.
                                       
          �������                    ������          (3)          ���          If there are two or moreheirsproposing
          ����������������          to acquire any interest under this section, that
          ����������������          heirwhooffersthe highest consideration for
          ����������������          the transfer shall be preferred.
                                       
          �������                    ������          Explanation:- In this section `court' means the court                  
          �������                    ������                    within thelimitsofwhosejurisdictionthe
          ����������������          immovable property is situate or the business is
          ����������������          carriedon,and includes any other court which
          ����������������          the State Government may, by notification in the
          ����������������          Tamil Nadu Government Gazettespecifyinthis
          ����������������          behalf.
                                       
          �������          3.����                    Certain Partitions to be null and void
                                       
          �������                    ������                              ������          Notwithstanding anything contained inthe
          ����������������          principalActor in any other law for the time
          ����������������          being in force, where on or after the25thday
          ����������������          of��          March,��          1989��          and��          beforethedateof
          ����������������          publicationoftheActtotheTamil��          Nadu
          ����������������          GovernmentGazette, any partition in respect of
          ��������                    ��������coparcenary property of a Joint Hindu Family has
          ����������������          been effectedandsuchpartitionisnotin
          ����������������          accordancewith the provisions of the principal
          ����������������          Act, as amendedbythisAct,suchpartition
          ����������������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