Hindu Succession Act, For Female Intestates

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, For Female Intestates

The HSA, 1956, was instituted nine years after India gained independence, and around then, the legislature did not ponder that in times to come, women in India would get properties voluntarily. Throughout the long term, women have taken steps in diverse circles. The circumstance in India has changed significantly from that point forward as women are becoming forerunners in different fields and, in this manner, own properties as in their right. Nonetheless, the Act, which additionally covers non-testamentary succession of Hindus, yet additionally of Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs, actually contains a cavity concerning self-obtained properties of women. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 made the daughter, similar to the son, a coparcener in a joint family. The amendment guaranteed that women and men became equivalent beneficiaries of ancestral property^[1]. The general rule for all kinds of property is that it will pass on to the children and the husband. The first kind of property, however, will be inherited by the heirs of her father and the remainder by her husband's heirs if no one is alive from the predeceased at the time when succession begins^[2]. Perhaps, the legislature intended that the property should revert to the source from which it was received. The subject of inquiry herein is the succession procedure of the third kind of property, which includes the self-acquired property or property obtained in any other manner or from another source, provided she has absolute rights in that property.^[3]

With an end goal to follow the development of the law connecting with intestate succession from Shastric law to statutory intercessions, an endeavour has been made to feature the hidden social circumstances that empowered the continuous change of Hindu law, with each change logically scratching its evil character. It is essential to seek to take on a viewpoint that analyzes the premises hidden in the resolutely inconsistent nature of the laws covering intestate succession to a Hindu female. ^[4]

Section 15 Of The HSA, 1956

Section 15 of the Act^[5] conceives a positive and uniform plan of property progression of a Hindu female who dies intestate. Section 16 of the Act sets out the request for the succession of the beneficiaries of the Hindu female and is to be perused alongside Section 15 of the Act, setting out the standard guidelines of succession. Notwithstanding, Section 15 of the Act has neglected to consider the value of the destiny of oneself obtained property of a Hindu female dying intestate. The lawmakers, while outlining the regulation, did not think about, around then, that Hindu females would hold self-procured property.

Section 15 discusses the succession of the property regarding the Hindu female dying intestate. As indicated by Section 16, the property of a female Hindu will be respectable according to the standards expressed in this Section. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act are approaching in their activity and do not oversee the succession of the property concerned about the Hindu female whose demise occurred before the Act commenced.

Section 15(1) Of The HSA, 1956

Many possessions not owned by a Hindu woman who received them from her parents, spouse, or father-in-law are included in this section. That implies a property obtained by the Hindu female from her husband, parents, or father-in-law not be in the way of inheritance but instead should be received through any other mode like a gift, will, settlement, a transfer for consideration, for example, the purchase will be covered under Section 15(1). The property given to the Hindu female, even from her father, will not be equivalent to acquired property, so Section 15(2) rather than Section 15(1) is made by a female. A female has the privilege to get property from some other source, including property acquired from some other connection in the family, for example, property acquired from her brother as his sister or her husband's brother as his brother's widow. This property will be considered her 'general property, given under Section 15(1). The primary beneficiaries referenced are divided into five will be applied here as held in the case of Meyappa v. Kannappa ^[6]

Self-acquisitions are also covered under Section 15(1) categories called 'entries'; if a single heir is present in the earlier entry, the property will not go to the next entry as Section 16. The government will confiscate the property by escheat if no heirs are mentioned in the five entries.

A.Sons and daughters, as well as sons and daughters of a predeceased son or daughter, i.e., grandchildren, and the husband

These heirs will succeed concurrently and equally, excluding others following Section 16. However, the intestate's son, daughter, or husband will not be given per capita together with the offspring of a predeceased son or daughter. Still, they will accept the share that their father or mother would have taken if they were alive at the time of the intestate's death, i.e., they will take per stripe. In other words, these children will split the portion corresponding to their deceased parent's part.

In the case^[7], the Apex Court observed that an adoptive mother could not be denied the ability to dispose of her separate property through a transfer or will if she has adopted a son. As a result, such a remedy is given to the widow or adoptive mother of the lawsuit, the property owner who became hers after her husband's passing.

B.) Husband's Heir

The property will be given to the husband's heirs since it is assumed to be her husband's property, and Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act does not preclude her husband's heirs from inheriting the property if heirs do not follow them in entry A. Consequently, the husband will be considered to have passed on following the female Hindu's death, according to Section 16. Main successors to the husband do not imply 'everyone who might have been the heirs of such husband.'

It could be noticed that the date of the commencement of the succession is not the date of the husband's death, yet, that of the deceased, for example, female Hindu Seethalakshmi Ammal v. M. Iyengar ^[8]. Therefore, it must be assumed that her husband owned the property because he had passed away at the time of the decedent's intestate succession. In such a case, the "kid of the husband" born to him from a prior marriage can win over the "stepson of a female" competent successor. Along these lines, when a Hindu woman dies intestate, leaving her stepson and her brother behind, the stepson will prevail over her property^[9].

C.) Father and mother of the expired female

Father or Mother does exclude a stepfather or mother. However, the adoptive mother or father is incorporated. Nonetheless, the stepfather or mother could prevail as 'heir of the mother' and the last option as 'heir of the father.'

Where the parent's marriage was a void marriage or an annulled voidable marriage, the parents inherited from such children. Even if the deceased female (proposita) were an illegitimate daughter of the mother, a mother would inherit. However, an alleged father will not inherit.

D.) Heir of the father

The legislation regarding "succession to the property of a Hindu male" (Section 8) does not fully resolve the inheritance because the property is presumed to be her father's. Hence, the father will be considered to have died following the female Hindu's passed on, according to Section 16. Successors to the father do not imply 'everyone who might have been the main beneficiaries of such a father.'

The classification will incorporate family, including half-blood brothers or sisters and their relatives, grandparents, and other natal relations.

E.) Heir of the mother

Since the property is deemed her father's, the inheritance is not entirely laid by the law concerning 'succession to the property of a Hindu female under Section 15 and Section 16. Section 16 stipulates that the mother shall be regarded as having died in this manner upon the passing of the female Hindu. Successors to the mother do not imply 'everyone who might have been the heirs of such mother.' The class will incorporate the half-brother or sister.

Section 15(2) Of The HSA, 1956

Section 15(2) says that despite these provisions, on the off chance that the woman is not survived by a child or a child of a predeceased child, then, at that point, any property she acquired from her father or mother will go to the father's heir. Any property she received from her husband or father-in-law will go to the husband's heir. Section 15(2) says that despite these provisions, on the off chance that the woman is not survived by a child or a child of a predeceased child, then, at that point, any property she acquired from her father or mother will go to the father's heir. Any property she received from her husband or father-in-law will go to the husband's heir.

The Property Inherited From Mother Or Father Section 15(2)(A) Of The HSA, 1956

This particular Section gives despite anything contained in Sub-section^[10](1). Any property acquired by a female Hindu from her father and mother will plummet, on the off chance that there is no son or girl of the deceased present, including the children of any predeceased son or little girl not upon the main beneficiaries referred to in subsection(1) in the request depicted yet on the father's beneficiaries. Consequently, Section 15(2)(a) is a special case for Section 15(1).

Section 15 (2) governs just the property acquired by the intestate by 'inheritance' as an heir and not received from parents through gift or will. It may be considered that gifted property is not equal to inherited property. Any property gifted at the hour of marriage is her stridhan^[11], and its progression is represented by Section 15(1)^[12]. Also, if she has changed over the property she acquired from her parents into another property, succession will not be represented under Section 15 (2)^[13].

In like manner, the inherited property ought to be accessible at her death. If the property's identity is changed or substantially altered and improved, or if it is substituted, then Section 15(2) has no application. Thus, if she inherits property from her father, then sells it and, out of sale proceeds, purchases another property, this property again would be her general property, and section 15(1) will apply as held in Veera Raghavamma v. G Subbarao^[14].

Progression In The Law About Female Intestate Succession

The case of Mamta D. Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa ^[15]is a decisive judgment towards presenting changes in the female intestate succession laws among Hindus. The case is a standard female intestate succession issue but one of only a handful of exceptions to challenge the legality of the law the way things are today. It challenges the constitutionality of Section 8 and Section 15 of the HSA^[16]. Fortunately, the judiciary, this time, maintained the constitutional principles of equality as cherished in Article 15. To comprehend the judgment's premise, one should understand the standards for certifiable discrimination in the law.

It is law and order and a laid-out rule in Article 15 of our Constitution that discrimination cannot be made against any resident based on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. This being the situation, discrimination based "only" concerning the above grounds is illegal, however not the one which depends on the above factors combined with a few different rules like social and instructive backwardness. This is the very motivation behind why governmental policy regarding minorities in society, like reservations given caste, is not violative of Article 15^[17]. It was argued, expanding on this suggestion and relying on the HSA sections, that the inequality in Section 15(1) of the Act did not depend solely on orientation but also on family ties. Further, it was stated that "the woman, upon marriage, stays with her husband's family; the opposite is incorrect. A woman surrenders her maternal or paternal ties to her marriage and expects conjugal ties. Subsequently, intestate succession for Hindus considers this ground reality." Considering this reality, the legislature has accommodated the main successors to the husband in the woman's property.

In the case of Sonubai Yeshwant Jadhav v. Bala Govinda Yadav^[18], the court held that "the object of the legislation was to hold property with the joint family upon marriage which united males and females forming them into one institution. It, this way, acknowledged that in recognition of that position when the wife's succession opened, the class known as beneficiaries of the husband were allowed to prevail because of the beginning solidarity in marriage after which the female converged in the husband's family."

Succession To Property Of A Female Hindu

In the case of Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh,^[19] a Hindu woman, and her sister were given the property by their mother when she passed away. In the wake of acquiring the property, one sister died issueless. The other sister accepted the property as her 'father's heir' under Section 15(2)(a) and consented to sell the property to an individual A. The expired sister's husband's brother challenged the legitimacy of this deal and asserted the property as an heir under Section 15(1)(b).

The question arose whether the said property would be given to the legitimate beneficiaries of the father or on to the successor to predeceased husband(husband's sibling). It was held by the court that under Section 15(1)(b) of the HSA, assuming a female Hindu dies issueless and without making the will, the devolution of the property must be founded on the source from which females acquired property. Considering the property held by a female was obtained from her father or mother in the nonexistence of any child of the deceased, it would just devolve upon the father's heirs. Also, in this situation, her sister, who was the principal legitimate heir of the father of the expired, unquestionably acquired the property because the aim of the legislature is specific that the property, whenever it had a place with the parents of the deceased female initially ought to go to the father's lawful beneficiaries. In this way, an offer of such property by the sister of the female Hindu is substantial.

The learned counsel for the respondents, i.e., beneficiaries of the husband, fought that the deceased female procured the property from her mother. Moreover, the deceased female had just restricted freedoms over this property. Still, by Section 14(1) of the HSA, she turned into the complete proprietor of the property. As a result, in the event of her demise, the property she had retained would be transferred to her lawful beneficiaries following Section 15(1). He additionally faced that Section 15 of the HSA will have just inevitable activity as per the words utilized in Section 15 (2)(a) that is, 'any property acquired by a female Hindu is to be considered as property acquired by her after the commencement of the Act.

However, the court recognized that such a legacy does not need to have occurred after the Act's inception. The legislature's aim is evident that the property, whenever it had a place with the parents of the deceased female, initially ought to go to the father's lawful beneficiaries. So additionally, under Section 15(2)(b), the property acquired by a female Hindu from her husband or her father-in-law ^[20]will likewise revert upon the husband's heirs under comparable conditions. It is the source from which the female acquired property, which is more fundamental for the devolution of her property. We do not think that a female Hindu initially had restricted freedoms and later obtained the full right in any capacity would turn the standards of succession given in Section 15(2).

The source is significant, from which the female acquires the property and controls what is happening. In any case, people who are not even somewhat connected with the individual who held the property initially would procure privileges to acquire that property. That would overcome the plan and reason for Section 15(2), which gives a unique example of progression. Properties acquired by her father were returned to the father's family without any issue. Similar to how she receives property from her husband or father-in-law, it goes back to the husband's heirs completely unnoticed. Such a provision would limit the properties passing under the control of people to whom justice would request not to give.

Failure Of The HSA

The Om Prakash v. Radha Charan^[21] case illustrates how HSA has neglected to demonstrate its vigor. The case relates to Narayani, after whose demise, there was a question concerning the succession of her property. Ramkishori, Narayani's mother, applied for the award of succession under Section 372^[22]. The respondents, who were the siblings of Narayani's spouse, likewise filed a similar application to get the succession of Narayani's self-gained properties. Knowing the fundamentals of how the properties were acquired is crucial for comprehending the situation's complex design.

Narayani's husband passed on from snakebite briefly after their marriage. She was then tossed out of her marital residence by her in-laws, the respondents here. She was never asked for the 42 years she remained in her parents' place after her husband's demise. Her parents educated her, and she acquired a generously paid job. In this manner, she left a gigantic measure of property, including ledgers, good assets, land, and so on, before she died intestate. The judges said that feelings and compassion could not be a core value to decide the interpretation of the law, and it ought not to be deciphered in a way that was not visualized by the legislature. The court expressed that since the HSA explicitly referenced that self-obtained properties will pass on to the husband's primary beneficiaries without the husband and any issues, which was the situation with Narayani, the court should pass the judgment for the respondents.

This point of reference is negative to future cases, inferable from the understanding given to the HSA by the establishment that is respected for conserving justice. Although it is justifiable that the court could never have gone beyond the legislature's intention, nonetheless, the court did not underwrite the Parliament's aim. ^[23]The contention of the direction for Narayani's mother holds weight in such a manner. It was contended that since the purpose of the Parliament while acquainting the said Section was to send the property back to the source and not to a stranger, it is logical that since Narayani's parents brought in the property, the cash so acquired ought to be returned to her parents. This, anyway, was not acknowledged by the court. The judgment can be condemned on another ground: the obliviousness to the standards of value, justice, a good conscience, and public policy. It should be understood that the succession rules consider those who should be disentitled and those who are qualified for the property.

Analysis

HSA's section 15 is the first statutory enactment dealing with succession to a Hindu female intestate property. Because women were less likely than men to be absolute property owners and more likely to be economically dependent, the initial legislative efforts, such as the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act of 1929 and the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act of 1937, were primarily focused on securing her maintenance and property rights rather than providing a plan for succession to her property.

The Act accommodates three distinct states of primary beneficiaries relying on the source of obtaining the property of a female that is accessible for succession. Extensively, her property is separated into three classes: property that a female Hindu has acquired from her parents^[24], property that a female Hindu has acquired from her husband or her father-in-law, and some other property ("general property").

It is essential to highlight that the HSA's inheritance laws have been declared to follow the principles of proximity, closeness, love, and affection and are no longer based on the necessity for the intestate's spiritual or religious benefit. Given this, it is absurd to suggest, as done by Section 15(1), that the entire group of husband's heirs are "near" concerning a childless widow compared to her parents, brothers, and sisters.

It is worth noting that Hindu succession law is the only succession law in the country that provides separate succession schemes for male and female intestates. Due to the importance given by Hindu law to the preservation and protection of property in the family of a male Hindu, there is no universal structure in place. A deeper look at Sections 15 and 16 forces one to concede that the fundamental, incredibly patriarchal assumptions of stident are still present. Section 15(2), which stipulates the reversion of a woman's estate in case of property inherited from her parents or husband, demonstrates that a woman only has limited estate over non-stridhana property and is not allowed to manage any property that she has inherited. Furthermore, as been highlighted, her husband's heirs are given preference over her blood relatives even though the Act aims to uphold the idea of nearness.

A legal framework that gives women equal rights in succession must be present to build an equal society. Not only do the current provisions engender inconsistent law principles in certain areas, but they are also severe impediments to gender equality^[25]. It can only be hoped that in the next phase of incremental reform to succession laws, Section 15 and Section 16 do not remain unamended.

The author is a student at University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES) - School of Law, Dehradun. Views are personal.