Back to Law Commission Home Page

LAW COMMISSION  OF INDIA

174TH REPORT

ON

“Property Rights of Women:

Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law”.

MAY, 2000

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

May 5, 2000

Dear Shri Jethmalaniji,

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

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

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

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

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

          With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

(B.P. Jeevan Reddy)

Shri Ram Jethmalani,

Minister for Law, Justice & Co. Affairs,

Shastri Bhavan,

New Delhi

                          TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl. No

                   CONTENTS

 1.

CHAPTER -I                                    

(INTRODUCTION)

 2.

CHAPTER -II                                   

(SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - A STUDY)

 3.

CHAPTER -III                                  

(COPARCENARY:  RELEVANCE AND ALTERNATIVES)

 4.

CHAPTER -IV                                   

(QUESTIONNAIRE AND ITS RESPONSES)

 5.

CHAPTER -V                                    

(CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS)

 6.

APPENDIX - A                                    (THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDEMENT) BILL, 2000)

 7.

ANNEXURE - I           

(QUESTIONNAIRE - LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA)

 8.

ANNEXURE - II                                 

(ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE LAW COMMISSION)

 9.

ANNEXURE - III                                

(WORKING PAPER ON COPARCENARY RIGHTS TO DAUGHTERS UNDER THE HINDU LAW)

10.

ANNEXURE - IV                                 

THE KERALA JOINT HINDU FAMILY SYSTEM 

(ABOLITION) ACT, 1975 

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (ANDHRA PRADESH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1986

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (TAMIL NADU AMENDMENT) ACT, 1989

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (KARNATAKA AMENDMENT) ACT, 1994

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (MAHARASHTRA AMENDMENT) ACT, 1994

CHAPTER  - I

INTRODUCTION

         1.1   SCOPE

              Discrimination against women              is  so         pervasive

         that  it sometimes surfaces on a bare perusal of the law

         made by the legislature itself.  This is particularly so

         in relation to laws governing the inheritance/succession

         of property amongst the members of a Joint Hindu family.

         It  seems  that  this  discrimination  is  so  deep  and

         systematic  that  it  has  placed women at the receiving

         end.  Recognizing this the Law Commission  in  pursuance

         of its terms of reference, which, inter-alia, oblige and

         empower  it  to  make recommendations for the removal of

         anomalies, ambiguities  and  inequalities  in  the  law,

         decided  to  undertake  a  study  of  certain provisions

         regarding the property rights of Hindu women  under  the

         Hindu Succession  Act,  1956.    The  study  is aimed at

         suggesting changes to this Act  so  that  women  get  an

         equal share in the ancestral property.

         1.2 Issuing   of   Questionnaire   and  holding  of

             Workshop

                  Before any amendment in the  law  is  suggested

         with  a  view  to  reform the existing law, it is proper

         that opinion is elicited by way of placing the  proposed

         amendments  before  the public and obtaining their views

         and if  possible  by  holding  workshops   etc.      The

         Commission  thus  decided  to  have  the widest possible

         interaction with a cross section  of  society  including

         judges,      lawyers,     scholars,     Non-governmental

         Organizations (NGO'S) etc.  by issuing a  questionnaire.

         Their  views  were  also  elicited  on  several  of  the

         provisions  introduced  by  certain  State  Legislatures

         regarding  the  property rights of Hindu women which had

         been brought about by way of an amendment to  the  Hindu

         Succession Act,  1956.    The  main  focus/thrust of the

         questionnaire (annexed as  Annexure  I)  was  to  elicit

         views on three issues namely:-

               i) granting  daughters  coparcenary  rights in the

                  ancestral property; or to totally  abolish  the

                  right by birth given only to male members;

               ii) allowing  daughters  full right of residence in

                  their parental dwelling house; and

               iii) restricting the power of a person  to  bequeath

                  property  by  way  of  testamentary disposition

                  extending  to  one-half  or  one-third  of  the

                  property.

         1.2.1 The Commission received replies in response  to

         the questionnaire.  These replies have been analysed and

         tabulated and this is annexed as Annexure II.

         1.2.2. Aiming at a wider and more intense  interaction

         the  Law  Commission  in collaboration with the ILS, Law

         College and Vaikunthrao Dempo Trust of Goa, organised  a

         two  day  workshop  on  "Property  Rights of Hindu Women

         proposed Reforms" in Pune on 28-29  August,  1999.    At

         this  Workshop  the  Chairman  and  members  of  the Law

         Commission  held  detailed  discussions   with   eminent

         lawyers and NGO'S and teachers of ILS Law College, Pune.

         A Working Paper on Coparcenary Rights to Daughters Under

         Hindu Law  along with a draft bill was circulated.  This

         is annexed as Annexure-III.

         1.2.3 The Law Commission has carefully considered all

         the  replies  and the discussion at the workshop at Pune

         before formulating  its  recommendations  to  amend  the

         Hindu  Succession  Act,  1956  with a view to giving the

         Hindu women, an equal right to succeed to the  ancestral

         property.

          1.3 The Background

                       Since  time  immemorial  the  framing  of   all

         property  laws  have been exclusively for the benefit of

         man, and woman has  been  treated  as  subservient,  and

         dependent on  male  support.    The right to property is

         important for the freedom and  development  of  a  human

         being.   Prior  to the Act of 1956, Hindus were governed

         by Shastric and Customary laws which varied from  region

         to  region and sometimes it varied in the same region on

         a caste  basis.     As   the   country   is   vast   and

         communications  and social interactions in the past were

         difficult,  it  led  to  a   diversity   in   the   law.

         Consequently  in  matters of succession also, there were

         different schools, like  Dayabhaga  in  Bengal  and  the

         adjoining  areas;  Mayukha in Bombay, Konkan and Gujarat

         and Marumakkattayam or Nambudri in Kerala and Mitakshara

         in other parts of India with  slight  variations.    The

         multiplicity  of  succession  laws  in India, diverse in

         their nature, owing to  their  varied  origin  made  the

         property laws even mere complex.

         1.3.1. A woman in a  joint  Hindu  family,  consisting

         both  of  man  and woman, had a right to sustenance, but

         the control and ownership of property did  not  vest  in

         her.   In  a  patrilineal  system,  like  the Mitakshara

         school of Hindu law, a woman,  was  not  given  a  birth

         right in the family property like a son.

         1.3.2 Under  the  Mitakshara  law,  on birth, the son

         acquires a right and interest in  the  family  property.

         According  to  this  school, a son, grandson and a great

         grandson constitute a class  of  coparcenars,  based  on

         birth in  the  family.    No  female  is a member of the

         coparcenary in Mitakshara law.    Under  the  Mitakshara

         system,  joint  family property devolves by survivorship

         within the coparcenary.   This  means  that  with  every

         birth  or  death  of  a male in the family, the share of

         every other surviving male  either  gets  diminished  or

         enlarged.  If a coparcenary consists of a father and his

         two sons,  each would own one third of the property.  If

         another son is born in  the  family,  automatically  the

         share of each male is reduced to one fourth.

         1.3.3 The Mitakshara law also recognises  inheritance

         by  succession but only to the property separately owned

         by an individual, male or female.  Females are  included

         as  heirs  to  this  kind of property by Mitakshara law.

         Before the Hindu  Law  of  Inheritance  (Amendment)  Act

         1929,  the  Bengal,  Benares  and Mithila sub schools of

         Mitakshara recognised  only  five  female  relations  as

         being  entitled  to  inherit  namely  - widow, daughter,

         mother paternal grandmother,  and  paternal  great-grand

         mother.1  The Madras sub-school recognised the heritable

         capacity of a larger number of females heirs that is  of

         the  son's daughter, daughter's daughter and the sister,

         as heirs who are expressly named as heirs in  Hindu  Law

         of Inheritance (Amendment) Act,1929.2 The son's daughter

         and  the daughter's daughter ranked as bandhus in Bombay

         and Madras.  The Bombay school which is most liberal  to

         women,  recognised  a  nunmber  of  other  female heirs,

         including a  half  sister,  father's  sister  and  women

         married into the family such as stepmother, son's widow,

         brother's  widow  and also many other females classified

         as bandhus.

         1.3.4 The Dayabhaga school neither accords a right by

         birth nor by survivorship  though  a  joint  family  and

         joint property  is  recognised.    It lays down only one

         mode of succession and the  same  rules  of  inheritance

         apply  whether  the  family  is divided or undivided and

         whether the  property  is  ancestral  or  self-acquired.

         Neither  sons  nor daughters become coparceners at birth

         nor do they have rights in the  family  property  during

         their father's  life  time.  However, on his death, they

         inherit as tenants-in-common.  It is a  notable  feature

         of  the  Dayabhaga  School  that  the daughters also get

         equal shares  alongwith  their  brothers.    Since  this

         ownership  arises only on the extinction of the father's

         ownership  none  of  them  can  compel  the  father   to

         partition the property in his lifetime and the latter is

         free to give or sell the property without their consent.

         Therefore,  under  the  Dayabhaga law, succession rather

         than survivorship is the rule.  If one of the male heirs

         dies, his heirs, including females such as his wife  and

         daughter would become members of the joint property, not

         in their own right, but representing him.  Since females

         could be coparceners, they could also act as kartas, and

         manage  the  property  on behalf of the other members in

         the Dayabhaga School.

         1.3.5 In  the Marumakkattayam law, which prevailed in

         Kerala  wherein  the  family  was  joint,  a   household

         consisted  of  the  mother  and  her children with joint

         rights in property.  The lineage was traced through  the

         female line.   Daughters and their children were thus an

         integral part of  the  household  and  of  the  property

         ownership as the family was matrilineal.

         1.4   However, during the British regime, the country

         became politically  and  socially  integrated,  but  the

         British Government did not venture to interfere with the

         personal laws of Hindus or of other communities.  During

         this period, however, social reform movements raised the

         issue   of  amelioration  of  the  woman's  position  in

         society.  The earliest legislation bringing females into

         the  scheme  of  inheritance  is  the   Hindu   Law   of

         Inheritance Act,  1929.  This Act, conferred inheritance

         rights on three  female  heirs  i.e.    son's  daughter,

         daughter's  daughter  and  sister  (thereby  creating  a

         limited  restriction  on  the  rule  of   survivorship).

         Another landmark legislation conferring ownership rights

         on  woman  was  the  Hindu Women's Right to Property Act

         (XVIII of ) 1937.  This Act brought about  revolutionary

         changes  in  the  Hindu  Law of all schools, and brought

         changes not only in the law of coparcenary but  also  in

         the   law   of   partition,   alienation   of  property,

         inheritance and adoption.3

         1.4.1 The Act of 1937 enabled the  widow  to  succeed

         along  with the son and to take a share equal to that of

         the son.  But, the widow did  not  become  a  coparcener

         even  though she possessed a right akin to a coparcenary

         interest in the property and was a member of  the  joint

         family.  The widow was entitled only to a limited estate

         in  the  property  of the deceased with a right to claim

         partition.4 A  daughter  had  virtually  no  inheritance

         rights.    Despite   these   enactments  having  brought

         important changes in the law of succession by conferring

         new rights of succession on certain females, these  were

         still  found  to  be  incoherent  and  defective in many

         respects and gave rise to a number of anomalies and left

         untouched the basic features of  discrimination  against

         women.  These enactments now stand repealed.

         1.5   The  framers  of  the  Indian Constitution took

         note of the adverse and discrimnatory position of  women

         in  society  and  took  special  care to ensure that the

         State took positive steps  to  give  her  equal  status.

         Articles 14, 15(2) and (3) and 16 of the Constitution of

         India,  thus  not  only  inhibit  discrimination against

         women but in appropriate circumstances  provide  a  free

         hand  to  the State to provide protective discrimination

         in favour of women.  These provisions are  part  of  the

         Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.  Part

         IV of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles

         which  are  no less fundamental in the governance of the

         State and inter-alia also provide that the  State  shall

         endeavour  to  ensure  equality  between  man and woman.

         Notwithstanding    these    constitutional     mandates/

         directives  given  more than fifty years ago, a woman is

         still neglected in her own natal family as  well  as  in

         the family she marries into because of blatant disregard

         and unjustified violation of these provisions by some of

         the personal laws.

         1.5.1 Pandit   Jawaharlal   Nehru,   the  then  Prime

         Minister of India expressed his  unequivocal  commitment

         to  carry  out  reforms  to  remove  the disparities and

         disabilities suffered by Hindu women.  As a consequence,

         despite the resistance of the orthodox  section  of  the

         Hindus,  the  Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was enacted and

         came into force on 17th June, 1956.  It applies  to  all

         the Hindus  including  Buddhists,  Jains  and Sikhs.  It

         lays  down  a  uniform  and  comprehensive   system   of

         inheritance  and  applies  to those governed both by the

         Mitakshara and the Dayabahaga Schools and also to  those

         in  South  India  governed  by  the the Murumakkattayam,

         Aliyasantana, Nambudri and other systems of  Hindu  Law.

         Many  changes  were  brought  about giving women greater

         rights, yet in section 6 the Mitakshara Coparcenary  was

         retained.

         1.6   The  Law  Commission  is  concerned  with   the

         discrimination  inherent  in  the Mitakshara coparcenary

         under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as it  only

         consists of male members.  The Commission in this regard

         ascertained the opinion of a cross section of society in

         order  to  find  out, whether the Mitakshara coparcenary

         should be retained as provided in section 6 of the Hindu

         Succession Act, 1956, or  in  an  altered  form,  or  it

         should be  totally abolished.  The Commission's main aim

         is to end gender discrimination  which  is  apparent  in

         section   6   of   the  Hindu  Succession  Act,1956,  by

         suggesting   appropriate   amendments   to   the    Act.

         Accordingly, in the next two chapters of this report the

         Commission  has  made  a broad study of section 6 of the

         Hindu Succession Act, 1956,  and  the  Hindu  Succession

         State(Amendment)  Acts  of  Andhra Pradesh (1986), Tamil

         Nadu(1989), Maharashtra(1994)  and  Karnataka(1994)  and

         the  Kerala  Joint  Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975.

         The Acts are annexed collectively as Annexure IV.

          Foot notes

         1.     Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law (1998 17th ed by

                  S.A.  Desai), p.  168.

         2.            Ibid.

         3.     Mayne's,  Treatise  on Hindu Law & Usage, (1996

                  14th Edition,  ed.    by   Alladi   Kuppuswami)

                  p.1065.

         4.     M.  Indira Devi, "Woman's  Assertion  of  Legal

                  Rights to Ownership of property" in Women & Law

                  Contemporary Problems, (1994 ed.  by L.  Sarkar

                  & B.    Sivaramayya) at p.174; also see section

                  3(3) of Hindu Women's Right  to  Property  Act,

                  1937.

CHAPTER II                                            

SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - A STUDY         

         2.1           The    Hindu    Succession    Act,    1956

         (hereinafter referred as the HSA) dealing with intestate

         succession  among  Hindus  came into force on 17th June,

         1956.  This Act brought about  changes  in  the  law  of

         succession  and gave rights which were hitherto unknown,

         in relation to a woman's property.  However, it did  not

         interfere  with  the  special  rights  of  those who are

         members of a Mitakshara coparcenary  except  to  provide

         rules  for  devolution  of the interest of a deceased in

         certain cases.    The  Act  lays  down  a  uniform   and

         comprehensive   system   of   inheritance  and  applies,

         inter-alia,  to  persons  governed  by  Mitakshara   and

         Dayabhaga  Schools  as also to those in certain parts of

         southern India  who  were  previously  governed  by  the

         Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri Systems.  The

         Act  applies to any person who is a Hindu by religion in

         any of its forms or develpments including a  Virashaiva,

         a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo Prarthana or Arya

         Samaj; or to any person who is Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by

         religion;  to  any  other  person  who  is not a Muslim,

         Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion as  per  section  2.

         In  the case of a testamentary disposition this Act does

         not apply and the interest of the deceased  is  governed

         by the Indian Succesion Act, 1925.

         2.2   Section 4 of the Act is of importance and gives

         overriding   effect   to   the  provisions  of  the  Act

         abrogating  thereby  all  the  rules  of  the   Law   of

         succession  hitherto  applicable  to  Hindus  whether by

         virtue of any text or rule of Hindu law or any custom or

         usage having the  force  of  laws,  in  respect  of  all

         matters dealt  with  in  the  Act.  The HSA reformed the

         Hindu personal law and gave  a  woman  greater  property

         rights,  allowing  her  full ownership rights instead of

         limited  rights  in  the  property  she  inherits  under

         Section 14 with a fresh stock of heirs under sections 15

         and 16  of  the  Act.    The daughters were also granted

         property rights in their father's estate.  In the matter

         of succession to the property  of  a  Hindu  male  dying

         intestate,  the  Act lays down a set of general rules in

         Sections 8 to 13.

         2.3 DEVOLUTION OF INTEREST IN COPARCENARY PROPERTY

                       Section 6 of the HSA dealing with devolution of

         interest to coparcenary property states-

                "When a male Hindu dies after the  commencement

                  of this Act, having at the time of his death an

                  interest  in a Mitakshara coparcenary property,

                  his interest in the property shall  devolve  by

                  survivorship  upon the surviving members of the

                  coparcenary and not  in  accordance  with  this

                  Act:

                  Provided  that,  if  the  deceased had left him

                  surviving a female relative specified in  Class

                  I  of the Schedule or a male relative specified

                  in that class who claims  through  such  female

                  relative,  the  interest of the deceased in the

                  Mitakshara Coparcenary property  shall  devlove

                  by testamentary or intestate succession, as the

                  case   may  be,  under  this  Act  and  not  by

                  survivorship.

                  Explanation  1.-  For  the  purposes  of   this

                  section,  the  interest  of  a Hindu Mitakshara

                  coparcener shall be deemed to be the  share  in

                  the  property  that would have been allotted to

                  him if a partition of the  property  had  taken

                  place    immediately    before    his    death,

                  irrespective of  whether  he  was  entitled  to

                  claim partition or not.

                  Explanation   2,--  Nothing  contained  in  the

                  proviso to his section shall  be  construed  as

                  enabling  a  person  who  has separated himself

                  from the coparcenary before the  death  of  the

                  deceased  or  any  of  his  heirs  to  claim on

                  intestacy a share in the interest  referred  to

                  therein.

         2.3.1 Before  the  commencement of the HSA, codifying

         the rules of succession, the concept of a  Hindu  family

         under   Mitakshara   school  of  law  was  that  it  was

         ordinarily joint not only in  estate  but  in  religious

         matters as    well.        Coparcenary    property,   in

         contradistinction with the absolute or separate property

         of an individual  coparcenar,  devolved  upon  surviving

         coparceners  in  the  family,  according  to the rule of

         devolution by survivorship.

         2.3.2         Section 6 dealing with the  devolution  of

         the interest of a male Hindu in coparcenary property and

         while recognising the rule of devolution by survivorship

         among the members of the coparcenary, makes an exception

         to the  rule  in the proviso.  According to the proviso,

         if the deceased has left him surviving a female relative

         specified in Class I of Schedule I, or a  male  relative

         specified  in  that Class who claims through such female

         relative, the interest of the deceased in the Mitakshara

         coparcenary property shall devolve  by  testamentary  or

         intestate   succession   under   this  Act  and  not  by

         survivorship.  Further, under section  30  a  coparcener

         may  make  a  testamentary  disposition of his undivided

         interest in the Joint family property.

         2.3.3 The  rule  of survivorship comes into operation

         only:-  (1)  where  the  deceased  does  not  leave  him

         surviving  a  female relative specified in Class I, or a

         male relative specified in that Class who claims through

         such female relative and , (ii) when  the  deceased  has

         not  made  a  testamentary  disposition of his undivided

         share in the coparcenary property.  The Schedule to  the

         Act  read  with  Section 8 provides the following twelve

         relations as Class I heirs son; daughter; widow; mother;

         son of a pre-deceased son; daughter  of  a  pre-deceased

         son;   son  of  pre-deceased  daughter;  daughter  of  a

         pre-deceased daughter, widow of a pre-deceased son;  son

         of  pre-deceased  son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of

         pre-deceased  son  of  a  pre-deceased  son;  widow   of

         pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son.

         2.3.4 Section  6  contemplates   the   existence   of

         coparcenary  property  and  more than one coparcener for

         the  application  of   the   rule   of   devolution   by

         survivorship.   The  head  note  of  the  section  reads

         "Devolution of interest in coparcenary property".    The

         language  of  the main provision to the effect that "his

         interest in the property shall devolve  by  survivorship

         upon   the   surviving   members"   indicates  that  the

         devolution by survivorship  is  with  reference  to  the

         deceased  coparcener's interest alone; this coupled with

         the notional partition contemplated in Explanation 1  in

         this  section  for  the ascertainment of the interest of

         the deceased  coparcener  in  a  Mitakshara  coparcenary

         property  indicates  that  there is no disruption of the

         entire coparcenary.    It   follows   that   the   other

         coparceners,  would  continue  to be joint in respect of

         the other  coparcenary  property  till  a  partition  is

         effected.

         2.3.5 It  has already been pointed out above that the

         main provision of this section deals with the devolution

         of the interest of a coparcener dying intestate  by  the

         rule  of  survivorship  and  the  proviso  speaks of the

         interest of the deceased in the  Mitakshara  Coparcenary

         Property.   Now,  in  order  to  ascertain  what  is the

         interest of the  deceased  coparcener,  one  necessarily

         needs  to  keep  in  mind the two Explanations under the

         proviso.  These  two  Explanations  give  the  necessary

         assistance for ascertaining the interest of the deceased

         coparcener   in  the  Mitakshara  Coparcenary  Property.

         Explanation I provides for ascertaining the interest  on

         the  basis of a notional partition by applying a fiction

         as  if  the partition had taken place immediately before

         the death of the deceased coparcener.    Explanation  II

         lays  down  that a person who has separated himself from

         the coparcenary before the death of the deceased or  any

         of  the heirs of such divided coparcener is not entitled

         to claim on intestacy a share in the  interest  referred

         to in the section.

         2.3.6 Under the proviso if a female relative in class

         I of the schedule or  a  male  relative  in  that  class

         claiming  through  such  female  relative  survives  the

         deceased, then only would the question of  claiming  his

         interest by  succession arise.  Explanation I to section

         6 was interpreted differently  by  the  High  Courts  of

         Bombay,  Delhi,  Orissa  and Gujarat in the cases1 where

         the female relative happened to be a wife or the  mother

         living at  the  time of the death of the coparcener.  It

         is now not necessary  to  discuss  this  matter  as  the

         controversy has been finally set at rest by the decision

         of the  Supreme  Court  in 1978 in Gurupad v.  Heerabai2

         and reiterated later in 1994 in Shyama Devi  v.    Manju

         Shukla3  wherein  it  has  been held that the proviso to

         section 6 gives the formula for fixing the share of  the

         claimant and the share is to be determined in accordance

         with Explanation I by deeming that a partition had taken

         place a little before his death which gives the clue for

         arriving at the share of the deceased.

         2.3.7 The Supreme Court in Gurupad's case observed:

                       "In  order  to  ascertain the share of heirs in

         the property of a deceased coparcener it is necessary in

         the very nature of things, and as the very  first  step,

         to   ascertain   the   share  of  the  deceased  in  the

         coparcenary property.  For, by doing that alone one  can

         determine   the   extent   of   the   claimant's  share.

         Explanation I  to  Section  6  resorts  to  the  simple,

         expedient,  undoubtedly  a fictional partition, that the

         interest of a  Hindu  Mitakshara  coparcener  "shall  be

         deemed  to be" the share in the property that would have

         been allotted to him if a partition of that property had

         taken place immediately before  his  death.    What  is,

         therefore required to be assumed is that a partition had

         in fact taken place between the deceased and coparceners

         immediately before his death.  That assumption once made

         is irrevocable.    In other words, the assumption having

         been made once for the purpose of ascertaining the share

         of the deceased in the coparcenary property  one  cannot

         go  back  on  that assumption and ascertain the share of

         the heirs without  reference  to  it........    All  the

         consequences  which  flow from real partition have to be

         logically worked out, which means that the share of  the

         heirs  must  be  ascertained  on the basis that they had

         separated from one another and had received a  share  in

         the  partition which had taken place during the lifetime

         of the deceased.  The allotment of this share is  not  a

         processual  step  devised  merely  for  the  purpose  of

         working out some other conclusion.  It has to be treated

         and accepted  as  a  concrete  reality,  something  that

         cannot  be  recalled  just  as  a  share  allotted  to a

         coparcener in an actual partition  cannot  generally  be

         recalled.   The inevitable corollary of this position is

         that the heir will get his or her share in the  interest

         which  the  deceased  had in the coparcenary property at

         the time of his death, in addition to the share which he

         or she received or must be deemed to  have  received  in

         the notional partition."4

         2.3.8 Again in State of Maharashtra V.  Narayan  Rao5

         the  Supreme  Court carefully considered the decision in

         Gurupad's case and pointed out that "Gurupad's case  has

         to  be  treated  as an authority (only) for the position

         that when a female member who inherits  an  interest  in

         joint family property under section 6 of the Act files a

         suit  for partition expressing her willingness to go out

         of the family she would be entitled to both the interest

         she has inherited and the share which  would  have  been

         notionally  allotted  to her, as stated in Explanation I

         to section 6 of the Act.  But it cannot be an  authority

         for  the  proposition  that she ceases to be a member of

         the family on the death of a male member of  the  family

         whose interest in the family property devolves on her

         without  the  volition  to  separate  herself  from  the

         family.  A legal fiction should no doubt  ordinarily  be

         carried to its logical end to carry out the purposes for

         which  it  is  enacted  but  it cannot be carried beyond

         that.  It is no doubt true that the right  of  a  female

         heir  to  the  interest  inherited  by her in the family

         property gets fixed on the date of the death of  a  male

         member  under  section  6  of  the Act but she cannot be

         treated as having ceased to be a member  of  the  family

         without  her  volition  as  otherwise  it  will  lead to

         strange  results  which  could  not  have  been  in  the

         contemplation   of   Parliament  when  it  enacted  that

         provision and which might also not be in the interest of

         such females."

         2.4 Inequalities and Anomalies Discriminating Women

                  Despite the Constitution guaranteeing  equality

         to women, there are still many discriminatory aspects in

         the Hindu  law in the sphere of property rights.  In our

         society maltreatment of a woman in her husband's family,

         e.g.  for failing to respond to a demand of dowry, often

         results in her death.  But the tragedy is that there  is

         discriminatory  treatment  given  to  her  even  by  the

         members of her own natal family.

         2.4.1 In the Hindu  system,  ancestral  property  has

         traditionally   been   held  by  a  joint  Hindu  family

         consisting of male coparceners.  Coparcenary as seen and

         discussed earlier in the present work is a narrower body

         of persons within a joint family and consists of father,

         son, son's son and son's son's son.  A  coparcenary  can

         also be of a grandfather and a grandson, or of brothers,

         or an  uncle  and  nephew  and  so  on.   Thus ancestral

         property  continues  to  be   governed   by   a   wholly

         partrilineal  regime,  wherein  property  descends  only

         through the male line as only  the  male  members  of  a

         joint  Hindu  family  have  an  interest by birth in the

         joint or coparcenary property.  Since a woman could  not

         be  a coparcener, she was not entitled to a share in the

         ancestral property by birth.    A  son's  share  in  the

         property  in  case the father dies intestate would be in

         addition to the share he has on birth.

         2.5           Again,  the  patrilineal  assumptions of a

         dominant male ideology is clearly reflected in the  laws

         governing a Hindu female who dies intestate.  The law in

         her  case  in  markedly  different  from those governing

         Hindu males.  The property is to devolve  first  to  her

         children and husband:  secondly, to her husband's heirs;

         thirdly  to  her  father's  heirs,  and  lastly,  to her

         mother's heirs.6 The provision of section 15(2)  of  HSA

         is  indicative  again  of  a tilt towards the male as it

         provides that any property she inherited from her father

         or  mother  should  devolve,  in  the  absence  of   any

         children,  to  her  father's  heirs  and  similarly, any

         property   she   inherited   from   her    husband    or

         father-in-law, to her husband's heirs.  These provisions

         depict  that  property continues to be inherited through

         the male line from which it  came  either  back  to  her

         father's family or back to her husband's family.

         2.6   The  question  is whether, the Hindu Succession

         Act actually gave women an equal right  to  property  or

         did it  only  profess  to  do  so?    Significantly, the

         provisions regarding succession in the Hindu Code  Bill,

         as  originally  framed  by  the  B.N.Rau  Committee  and

         piloted  by  Dr.Ambedkar,   was   for   abolishing   the

         Mitakshara  coparcenary with its concept of survivorship

         and the son's right by birth in a joint family  property

         and substituting it with the principle of inheritance by

         succession.    These  proposals  met  with  a  storm  of

         conservative opposition.    The  extent  of   opposition

         within the Congress or the then government itself can be

         gauged   from  the  fact  that  the  then  Law  Minister

         Mr.Biswas, on the floor of the house, expressed  himself

         against  daughters  inheriting property from their natal

         families.  Sita  Ram  S.    Jajoo  from  Madhya  Bharat,

         identified  the  reason  for  the resistance accurately,

         when he stated:  "Here we  feel  the  pinch  because  it

         touches our  pockets.  We male members of this house are

         in a huge majority.  I do not wish that the  tyranny  of

         the  majority may be imposed on the minority, the female

         members of this house."7 However,  the  tyranny  of  the

         majority  prevailed  when the Bill was finally passed in

         1956.  The major changes brought were:-

               (1) Retention of the  Mitakshara  coparcenary  with

                  only males as coparceners;

               (2) Coparcener's right to will away his interest in

                  the joint family property.  (This provision was

                  unexpectedly  introduced by an amendment by the

                  then Law Minister Mr.  Pataskar  in  the  final

                  stages  of the clause-by-clause debate when the

                  bill was to be passed, in 1956.  It was  widely

                  perceived   and   pro-claimed,   even   in  the

                  contemporary press, to  be  a  capitulation  by

                  government.);

               (3) Removal  of  exemption  of  Marumakkattayam and

                  Aliyasantana  communities;  that  is,   virtual

                  destruction  of the only systems in which women

                  were the equivalent of full coparceners; and

               (4) Alteration  of  original   provision   that   a

                  daughter  would  get a share equivalent to half

                  the share of a son in self-acquired property of

                  the father  who  died  intestate.8  The  Select

                  Committee  decided  to  make her share full and

                  equal to that of a son.

         2.7   When Dr.Ambedkar was questioned as to how  this

         happened in the Select Committee he said:  "It was not a

         compromise.   My  enemies  combined with my enthusiastic

         supporters and my enemies thought that they  might  damn

         the Bill by making it appear worse than it was.9

         2.8   The retention  of  the  Mitakshara  coparcenary

         without  including  females in it meant that females can

         not inherit ancestral property as males do.  If a  joint

         family  gets  divided,  each  male  coparcener takes his

         share and females get nothing.  Only  when  one  of  the

         coparceners  dies, a female gets a share of his share as

         an heir to the deceased.  Thus the law by excluding  the

         daughters  from  participating  in coparcenary ownership

         (merely by reason of their sex) not only contributed  to

         an  inequity  against  females but has led to oppression

         and negation of their right to equality and  appears  to

         be a mockery of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the

         Constitution.

         2.9   Another  apparent  inequity  under  the   Hindu

         Succession  Act  as  per  Section  23,  is the provision

         denying a married daughter the right to residence in the

         parental home unless widowed, deserted or separated from

         her husband and further denying any daughter  the  right

         to  demand  her  share  in the house if occupied by male

         family members.  This right is not denied to a son.  The

         main object of the section is said to be the primacy  of

         the  rights  of the family against that of an individual

         by imposing a restriction on partition.  Why is it  that

         this  right  of  primacy of family is considered only in

         the case of a female member of the family?

         2.10  The  National  report on the Status of Women in

         India recommended that this discrimination in asking for

         a partition be removed so that a daughter enjoys a right

         similar to that of a son.10

         2.11  However,  the  Supreme  Court  by  its   recent

         judgment in Narashimaha Murthy  v.    Sushilabai11  held

         that  a  female  heir's  right to claim partition of the

         dwelling house of a Hindu dying intestate under  section

         23  of  the  HSA  will  be  deferred or kept in abeyance

         during the lifetime of even a sole surviving  male  heir

         of  the  deceased until he chooses to separate his share

         or ceases to occupy it or lets it out.  The idea of this

         section  being  to   prevent   the   fragmentation   and

         disintegration  of the dwelling house at the instance of

         the female heirs to the detriment of the male  heirs  in

         occupation of  the  house.  thus rendering the male heir

         homeless/shelterless.

         2.12  A  similar  instance of inequity created by law

         was the establishment of the  new  right  to  will  away

         property.   The  Act gave a weapon to a man to deprive a

         woman of  the  rights  she  earlier  had  under  certain

         schools of  Hindu  Law.    The  legal right of Hindus to

         bequeath property by way of will was  conferred  by  the

         Indian Succession  Act,  1925.    None of the clauses of

         1925 Act, apply to Hindus except wills.

         2.13  A rule firmly established before HSA was that a

         Hindu cannot by will bequeath property, which  he  could

         not have  alienated  by gift inter- vivos.  A coparcener

         under Dayabhaga law, however, could by gift  dispose  of

         the   whole   of   his  property  whether  ancestral  or

         self-acquired, subject to the claims of  those  entitled

         to be  maintained  by  him.  However, a coparcener under

         Mitakshara  law  had  no  power  to   dispose   of   his

         coparcenary  interest by gift or bequest so as to defeat

         the right of the other members.  The coparcenary  system

         even  restricted  the  rights  of  the Karta to alienate

         property, thereby safeguarding the rights of all members

         of the family including infants and  children  to  being

         maintained from the joint family property.

         2.14  Although  many  powers were vested in the karta

         or  male  head  of  the  family,  who  was  supposed  to

         administer the property in the interests of all members,

         yet  decisions regarding disposal of the family property

         were to be taken collectively.  Each male had  an  equal

         share in the property, but the expenditure was not to be

         apportioned only  to  males  but  also  to females.  The

         right to will away property was traditionally unknown to

         Hindus.  It was introduced into the statute by virtue of

         section 30 of the HSA.  According to  the  said  section

         any  Hindu  may dispose of by will or other testamentary

         disposition any property capable  of  disposition  (this

         includes   his   undivided   interest  in  a  Mitakshara

         coparcenary  property  as  per   the   Explanation)   in

         accordance  with the provisions of the Indian Succession

         Act, 1925.  This is ironical as this testamentary  right

         right of his daughter by succession.  It can also defeat

         a widow's  right.    There  is  thus a diminution in the

         status of a wife/widow.

         2.15  According to Muslim law a person is  restrained

         from giving  away all his property by will.  He can only

         will away a maximum of one-third of his property and the

         rest has to be divided among  the  agnatic  and  Koranic

         heirs.   A  person is, of course, not required to make a

         will.

         2.16  The  proviso  to section 6 of HSA also contains

         another gender bias.  It has been provided therein  that

         the   interest   of   the  deceased  in  the  Mitakshara

         Coparcenary shall devolve by intestate succession if the

         deceased had left surviving a female relative  specified

         in class I of the Schedule or a male relative" specified

         in  that class, who claims through such female relative.

         In order to appreciate the gender bias it  is  necessary

         to  see  the devolution of interest under section 8 HSA.

         The property of a male Hindu  dying  intestate  devolves

         according  to  section  8  of the HSA, firstly, upon the

         heirs being the relatives specified in class  I  of  the

         Schedule.  However, there are only four primary heirs in

         the  Schedule to class I, namely, mother, widow, son and

         daughter.  The remaining eight represent one or  another

         person  who  would have been a primary heir if he or she

         had not died before the propositus.   The  principle  of

         representation  goes  up to two degrees in the male line

         of descent; but in the female line of  descent  it  goes

         only upto  one degree.  Accordingly, the son's son's son

         and son's son's daughter get a share  but  a  daughter's

         daughter's son and daughter's daughter's daughter do not

         get anything.    A further infirmity is that widows of a

         pre-deceased son and grandson are class I heirs, but the

         husbands of a deceased daughter  or  grand-daughter  are

         not heirs.12

          FOOT NOTES

         1.            See Shiramabai v Kolgonda, 1964 Bom.263;

                       Kanahaya Lal v Jamna, 1973 Delhi 160;

                       Rangubai Lalji v Lakshman  Lal  Ji,   1966  Bom.

                       169;

                       See also Ananda v Haribandhu, 1967 orissa 90;       

                       Vidyaben v Jadgish Chandra, 1974 Guj 23;

                       Susheelabai v Narayanarao 1975, Bom.257

         2.            (1978) 3 SSC, p.383:  [1978] INSC 95;  AIR 1978 SC, 1239

         3.            (1994) 6 SCC, Pp.  342-343

         4.            Supra n.2 at Pp.  389-390 (para 13):  at 1243

         5.            [1985] INSC 62;  AIR 1985 SC 716, at p.721 (para 9)

         6.            Ratna  Kapoor  and  Brenda  Cossman,   Feminist

                        Engagements   with  law  in  India,  Subversive

                        sites, 1996, p.134

         7.            The     Constituent    Assembly    of    India,

                       (Legislative) Debates Vol.VI 1949 Part II,

         8.            Madhu  Kiswar,  "Codified  Hindu  Law  Myth and

                       Reality" Eco & Pol.  Weekly, No.33 Aug 1994.

         9.           The Constituent Assembly of India (Legislative)

                       Debates Vol.VI 1949 Part II, p.841

         10.           Status of Women in India,  A  Synopsis  of  the

                       Report  of  the  National  Committee  (1971-74)

                       p.53-54

         11.           [1996] INSC 560;  AIR 1996 SC, 1826.

         12.           Dr.   Tahir  Mahmood  Hindu Law, (1986; 2nd ed)

                       p.57.

CHAPTER - III

COPARCENARY:  RELEVANCE AND ALTERNATIVES

         3.1   It is apparent from the study of  the  previous

         chapter  that  discrimination  against  a  woman is writ

         large in relation to property rights.    Social  justice

         demands  that  a woman should be treated equally both in

         the economic and the social sphere.   The  exclusion  of

         daughters  from  participating  in  coparcenary property

         ownership merely by  reason  of  their  sex  is  unjust.

         Improving  their economic condition and social status by

         giving equal rights by birth is a long felt social need.

         Undoubtedly a radical reform of the  Mitakshara  law  of

         coparcenary  is  needed to provide equal distribution of

         property not  only  with  respect  to  the  separate  or

         self-acquired  property of the deceased male but also in

         respect of his undivided  interest  in  the  coparcenary

         property.

         3.2 The New Coparcenary under State Acts :  (ANDHRA

                  MODEL)

                 The idea of making a  woman  a  coparcener  was

         suggested   as  early  as  1945  in  written  statements

         submitted to the Hindu Law  Committee  by  a  number  of

         individuals  and  groups;  and  again  in 1956, when the

         Hindu Succession Bill was being finally debated prior to

         its enactment an amendment was moved to make a  daughter

         and her children members of the Hindu coparcenary in the

         same way as a son or his children.  But this progressive

         idea  was  finally  rejected  and  the  Mitakshara Joint

         family was  retained.

         3.2.1 The  concept  of  the  Mitakshara   coparcenary

         property  retained  under  section  6 of the HSA has not

         been amended ever since its enactment.  Though, it is  a

         matter  of  some  satisfaction that five states in India

         namely, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,  Maharashtra

         and  Karnataka1 have taken cognisance of the fact that a

         woman needs to be treated equally both in  the  economic

         and the social spheres.  As per the law of four of these

         states,  (Kerala  excluded),  in  a  joint  Hindu family

         governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener

         shall by birth become a coparcener in her own  right  in

         the same  manner  as the son.  Kerala, however, has gone

         one step further and abolished the right  to  claim  any

         interest  in  any  property of an ancestor during his or

         her lifetime founded on the mere fact that he or she was

         born in the famly.  In fact, it has abolished the  Joint

         Hindu family system altogether including the Mitakshara,

         Marumakkattayam,  Aliyasantana  and  Nambudri   systems.

         Thus  enacting that joint tenants be replaced by tenants

         in common.

         3.2.2 The approach of the Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,

         Maharashtra   and   Karnataka   state  legislatures  is,

         strikingly different  from  that  of  Kerala  and  these

         states   instead   of  abolishing  the  right  by  birth

         strengthened  it,  while  broadly  removing  the  gender

         discrimination inherent  in Mitakshara Coparcenary.  The

         broad features of the  legislations  are  more  or  less

         couched in the same language in each of these Acts.  The

         amending   Acts   of  Andhra  Pradesh,  Tamil  Nadu  and

         Maharashtra add three sections namely, 29A, 29B and  29C

         but  Karnataka numbers them as Sections 6A, 6B and 6C of

         the Act.

         3.2.3 These state enactments provide equal rights  to

         a  daughter  in  the  coparcenary property and contain a

         nonobstante clause.  In these four states;

               (a) the daughter of a coparcener in a  Joint  Hindu

                  Family governed by Mitakshara law, shall become

                  a  coparcener  by birth in her own right in the

                  same manner as the son and have similar  rights

                  in  the  coparcenary property and be subject to

                  similar liabilities and  disabilities;

               (b) On partition of a joint  Hindu  family  of  the

                  coparcenary  property,  she  will be allotted a

                  share equal to that of a son.  The share of the

                  predeceased son or a  predeceased  daughter  on

                  such   partition   would  be  allotted  to  the

                  surviving children of such predeceased  son  or

                  predeceased  daughter,  if alive at the time of

                  the partition.

               (c) This  property  shall  be  held by her with the

                  incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be

                  regarded as property capable of being  disposed

                  of   by  her  by  will  or  other  testamentary

                  disposition.

               (d) The  state enactments are prospective in nature

                  and do not apply to a daughter who  is  married

                  prior  to,  or  to  a  partition which has been

                  effected before the commencement of the Act.

         3.2.4 However,   these    four    Hindu    Succession

         (Amendment) Acts have been criticised as they have given

         rise  to  various  difficulties  in  their  working  and

         application.    These   four   amending    Acts,    have

         considerably altered the concept of the Mitakshara Joint

         family  and  coparcenary  by elevating a daughter to the

         position of a coparcener.  Once a daughter becomes a

         coparcener she naturally continues to be a member of the

         natal joint family and after marriage she will also be a

         member of her marital Joint family.2

         3.2.5 In this connection, it is  relevant  to  notice

         the observations of Mr.Pataskar made while participating

         in  the  parliamentary  debate  at  the  time  the Hindu

         Succession Bill, 1955 was moved.  He said:

                "To retain the Mitakshara Joint Family  and  at

                  the  same  time  put  a  daughter  on  the same

                  footing as a son with respect to the  right  by

                  birth,  right  of survivorship and the right to

                  claim partition at any time, will be to provide

                  for a joint  family  unknown  to  the  law  and

                  unworkable in practice"3

         3.2.6 It was noticed that in the State of Tamil Nadu,

         many properties were partitioned between the coparceners

         before  the Tamil Nadu (Hindu Succession Amendment) Act,

         1989  came  into  force  with  a  view  to  defeat   the

         daughter's right  to become a coparcener.  These were by

         and large "fraudulent partitions" which  were  pre-dated

         so  that  no  coparcenary  property was available to the

         daughter.  This malpractice has to be checked thoroughly

         otherwise the very objective of the  Act,  which  is  to

         remove   discrimination   inherent   in  the  Mitakshara

         coparcenary   against   daughters,   stands    defeated.

         Therefore,  though  the  Tamil  Nadu  Act  received  the

         President's assent on 15.1.1990 and was published in the

         official gazette only on  18.1.1990,  the  Act  provides

         that  partitions  effected  contrary  to  the  Act after

         25.3.89 will be deemed to be void.  The Law Commission's

         questionnaire elicited public opinion in this regard and

         found that the majority  were  of  the  view  that  such

         transactions  made  just  before  the  enactment  of the

         proposed legislation should be declared invalid.

         3.2.7 Another  infirmity of these state enactments is

         that they exclude  the  right  of  a  daughter  who  was

         married  prior  to the commencement of the Act, from the

         coparcenary property, though, the right is available  to

         a daughter who is married after the coming into force of

         the said amendment acts.  As a result a married daughter

         continues  to have her interest in the joint property of

         her paternal family, if her  marriage  has  taken  place

         subsequent  to  the enactment while the daughter who got

         married before the enforcement of the law gets no  right

         at  all  in  the  joint property of her parental family.

         Such a discrimination appears to be unfair and  illegal.

         A  recent  Supreme Court decisions lends support to this

         view.  In Savita Samvedi v.  Union of India5 it was held

         that the distinction between a married and an  unmarried

         daughter may be unconstitutional.  The observations made

         by Mr.Justice Punchhi are relevant; " The eligibility of

         a  married  daughter  must  be  placed  on  par  with an

         unmarried daughter (for she must have been once in  that

         state), so as to claim the benefit....."6

         3.2.8 The  majority  of  the  replies  to   the   Law

         Commission's  questionnaire  are  also  of the view that

         equal  rights  should  be  conferred  on   married   and

         unmarried daughters.   This is also the view with regard

         to the dwelling house.7

         3.2.9 It is further felt that once a daughter is made

         a coparcener on the same footing as a son then her right

         as  a  coparcener  should be real in spirit and content.

         In that event section 23 of the HSA should  be  deleted.

         Section  23  provides  that  on  the  death  of  a Hindu

         intestate, in case of a dwelling house  wholly  occupied

         by  members  of  the  joint family, a female heir is not

         entitled to  demand  partition  unless  the  male  heirs

         choose  to  do  so;  it  further  curtails  the right of

         residence of a daughter unless she is unmarried  or  has

         been deserted by or has separated from her husband or is

         a widow.    Section  23  of  HSA  needs  to  be  deleted

         altogether and there is  great  support  for  this  from

         various  sections  of  society  while  replying  to  the

         questionnaire.

         3.2.10  There  is also a need for special protection of

         a widow's right to reside in the dwelling  house.    The

         family  dwelling  house  should not be alienated without

         the  widow's  consent  or  without  providing   her   an

         alternative  accomodation  after  she  has agreed to the

         sale of the dwelling house.

         3.2.11  The HSA of 1956 give daughters as well  as  the

         widow  of  a deceased coparcener a share in the interest

         of the deceased male  coparcenar.    However,  the  four

         Hindu Succession  (State  Amendment)  Acts  i.e.  Andhra

         Pradesh, Tamil  Nadu,  Karnataka  and  Maharashtra  have

         conferred   equal   coparcenary   rights   on  sons  and

         dauthters;  thus  preserving  the  right  by  birth  and

         extending   it  to  daughters  also  in  the  Mitakshara

         Coparcenary.  This has the indirect effect  of  reducing

         the widow's  successional share.  This is because if the

         number of coparcenars increase then the interest of  the

         husband will decrease.

         3.2.12  The HSA of 1956 dithered in not abolishing  the

         very  concept  of  coparcenary which the Act should have

         done.  But the Hindu Succession (State  Amendment)  Acts

         have  confered  upon  the  daughter of a coparcener, the

         right to become a coparcener like a son which may affect

         the brother-sister relationship.    It  further  appears

         that  even  where  daughters  have been made coparceners

         there is still a reluctance to making her a Karta as the

         general male view is that she is incapable  of  managing

         the  properties or running the business and is generally

         susceptible to the influence  of  her  husband  and  his

         family, if married.  This seems to be patently unfair as

         women  are  proving  themselves equal to any task and if

         women  are  influenced  by  their  husbands  and   their

         families,  men are no less influenced by their wives and

         their families.

         3.3   Kerala Model

                       The State of Kerala has abolished  the  concept

         of coparcenary following the recommendation of the Hindu

         Law Committee - B.N.  Rau Committee (which was entrusted

         with the task of framing a Hindu Code Bill).  The Kerala

         model  furthers  the  unification  of Hindu law and P.V.

         Kane suporting the recommendation of the  Rau  Committee

         stated:

                "And  the  unification of Hindu Law will be

                  helped by the abolition of the right  by  birth

                  which  is  the cornerstone of Mitakshara school

                  and  which  the  draft  Hindu  code  seeks   to

                  abolish."8

         3.3.1 The Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act,

         1975 (hereinafter known as the Kerala  Act)  in  section

         4(i)  of  the  Act  lays  down that all the members of a

         Mitakshara Coparcenary will hold the property as tenants

         in common on the day the Act comes into force  as  if  a

         partition  had  taken  place and each holding his or her

         share separately.  The notable feature of the Kerala law

         is that it  has  abolished  the  traditional  Mitakshara

         coparcenary and  the right by birth.  But in Kerala, the

         Marumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri systems  were

         also  present,  some of which were matrilineal and these

         joint families were also abolished.   The  Kerala  Model

         probably   results  in  maintenance  of  greater  family

         harmony and appears to be a fair decision as  in  Kerala

         both matrilineal and patrilineal joint families existed.

         If  the  Joint  family  was abolished today in the other

         states then a deemed  partition  would  take  place  and

         women  not  being  coparceners  would  get nothing more.

         Whereas if they are made coparceners, then  they  become

         equal sharers.

         3.3.2 However, one common drawback of both the Kerala

         model  and  the Andhra model is that it fails to protect

         the share of the daughter, mother or  widow  from  being

         defeated  by making a testamentary disposition in favour

         of another, or by alienation.  This criticism of  course

         against  testamentary  disposition  can  be also used to

         disinherit a son.  The question  whether  a  restriction

         should   be   placed   on  the  making  of  testamentary

         disposition as in some of the personal laws  is  another

         matter in issue.

         3.4   In  order  to  provide  women  with some better

         property rights, four states have dealt with the  matter

         by virtue of the Hindu Succession (State Amendment) Acts

         and  Kerala  has  dealt  with it by abolishing the Hindu

         Joint Family altogether.    This  has  resulted  in  two

         different models  being  in  existence  i.e.  the Andhra

         model and the Kerala model.

         3.5   Recent reports in some newspapers  reveal  that

         the  Centre  has  asked  all  the  states  to  carry out

         suitable amendments in the HSA to confer property rights

         on women in a joint family.  "The  Department  of  Women

         and  Child  Development has requested various States and

         Union  Territories  to  draw  up  necessary  legislature

         proposal  to  amend  section  6 of the HSA, 1956 to give

         daughters their due  share  of  coparcenary  right"9  as

         already  done  by States like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,

         Maharashtra and  Tamil  Nadu.    It  is  also  indicated

         therein  that  the  Kerala  Government has taken a stand

         that  in  view  of  the  Kerala  Joint   family   system

         (Abolition)  Act,  1975,  Section 6 of the HSA "does not

         operate" in that State.

         3.6   The  subject  matter  of the laws of succession

         fall in entry 5 of the Concurrent List  of  the  Seventh

         Schedule to  the Constitution.  Therefore, Parliament as

         well as the State Legislatures are  competent  to  enact

         laws in  this  area.   In case another State brings some

         third model of legislation in this  field,  there  is  a

         likelihood  of  having  still more diversity in the law.

         This would result in the directive principles  of  state

         policy  not  being adhered to which require the State to

         endeavour to secure a uniform civil code throughout  the

         territory of  India.    If  we  cannot have that for the

         present we  should  at  least  have  uniformity  amongst

         Hindus.   Accordingly,  there  is need to have a central

         law enacted by  Parliament  under  article  246  of  the

         Constitution.  In such a situation the law made by these

         five  states  would  stand  repealed  to  the  extent of

         repugnancy, unless expressly repealed.

          FOOT NOTES

         1.     The Kerala Joint Family System (Abolition) Act,

                  1975

                The Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment)

                  Act.  1986

                The Hindu  Succession  (Tamil  Nadu  Amendment)

                  Act.  1989

                The  Hindu  Succession  (Maharashtra Amendment)

                  Act.  1994

                The Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act.

                  1994

                For text of these Acts, See Annexure - IV

         2.     B.Sivaramayya,    "Coparcenary    Rights     to

                  Daughters;  Constitutional and interpretational

                  Issues," (1997) 3 SCC (J), P.25

         3.     Lok Sabha Debates p.8014(1955)

         4.     Infra, Chapter IV, Para 4.10

         5.     JT (1996) 1 P.680

         6.     Id, at PP.  683-684 Para 7

         7.     Infra, Chapter IV, Para 4.7

         8.     M.P.V.  Kane, History of Dharamsastra, (Ancient

                  and Medieval Religious and  Civil  Law)  (1946)

                  Vol.III, p.823

         9.     PTI,  "Centre  asks  States  to   amend   Hindu

                  Succession  Act",  The  Observer  7.2.2000; see

                  also The Tribune, 22.3.2000. 

CHAPTER - IV

         4.1   Questionnaire and its responses

                       A  questionnaire  was   issued   by   the   Law

         Commission  to  elicit the views of the public regarding

         giving  of  rights  to  a  daughter  in  the  Mitakshara

         property of    a   Hindu   undivided   family.      This

         questionnaire  consisted  of  three  parts   having   21

         questions.1  Sixty-Seven respondents have replied to the

         questionnaire.  30 respondents are from  the  profession

         of  law  and  the  rest comprise sociologists, NGOs etc.

         The responses received relating to various issues of the

         questionnaire  have  been  analysed  and  tabulated   in

         Annexure II.    A  brief  synopsis  of  the more salient

         issues is set out.

         4.2 Mitakshara  Joint  Family to be retained or not

                  and reasons for doing so?

                       Out  of  the  67 respondents, the majority

                  opposed    retention    of    the    Mitakshara

                  Coparcenary.   The  two  main reasons indicated

                  for  this  opposition  were,  the   coparcenary

                  system  discriminates  against  women  and  the

                  legislative changes  have  already  eroded  the

                  utility of the coparcenary system.  The few who

                  favoured its retention were of the view that it

                  protects  the financially weaker members of the

                  family, gives better rights to males and  helps

                  in  agriculture  and business activities of the

                  family.

         4.3 Steps   to   be   taken   to   remove    gender

                  discrimination

                       However, the majority of  the  respondents

                  suggested   that,   even   if,  the  Mitakshara

                  Coparcenary is retained,  though  it  would  be

                  better  if  it  were  done away with the gender

                  bias in HSA should be removed.    Consequently,

                  they wanted a daughter to be given the right by

                  birth to become a coparcener like the son.

         4.4 Daughter becoming a Karta in the  Joint  Family

                  in case Mitakshara Joint Family is retained.

                       About  half  the  respondents  wanted  the

                  daughter  to become a Karta in the Joint Family

                  if the Mitakshara Joint Family is retained.

         4.5 From  what  period should the Act (when passed)

                  be applicable?

                       Opinion on this issue was clearly  divided

                  and   only   11   respondents  favoured  giving

                  retrospective effect, from 10 to 15 years prior

                  to  the  passing  of  the  Act;  14  were   for

                  providing  protection to the purchasers who had

                  bought  the  property   in   good   faith;   12

                  respondents were in favour of not affecting the

                  vested  rights  and  some  respondents  did not

                  answer the querry.

         .

         4.6 Should  the right of coparcenary be confered on

                  the mother by the proposed legislation?

                       The  majoirty  of the respondents favoured

                  conferring coparcenary right on the mother.

         4.7 Should  attempts   to   defeat   the   proposed

                  legislation immediately before its enactment by

                  partition or sales be declared invalid?

                       The majority of the  respondents  answered

                  the  question in the affirmative declaring that

                  such transanctions ought to be totally invalid.

         4.8 Right to residence or partition of the Dwelling

                  House by a daughter

                       The  majority  preferred  that  the law be

                  amended to provide that partition can be sought

                  by the female heirs also even if there was only

                  one ancestral  home.    On  the  issue  whether

                  married daughters be given a right of residence

                  in  the  dwelling  house, the majority favoured

                  equal  treatement  for  married  and  unmarried

                  daughters  and  some also suggested deletion of

                  section 23 of HSA altogether.

         4.9 Widows right to residence or forbidding sale of

                  the dwelling house.

                       A large majority of the respondents,  that

                  is,  61  have expressed themselves in favour of

                  giving a special protection to a widow's  right

                  to reside   in   the  dwelling  house.    Other

                  alternative suggestions made  were  to  declare

                  that   the  family  dwelling  house  cannot  be

                  alienated  without  the  widow's   consent   or

                  without  providing an alternative accommodation

                  to her after she had agreed to the sale of  the

                  dwelling house, or to confer `Homestead' rights

                  on the wife/widow like in U.S.A., Canada.

         4.10 Inheritance  Certificate   on   death   of   an

                  individual  by all heirs indicating their share

                  in the property

                       The   majority   wanted  that  Inheritance

                  Certificates should be issued but watnted  that

                  to be  issued  at  the  lowest  rung,  i.e.  by

                  Munsif's Courts.    They  also   favoured   the

                  establishment   of   `Itinerary   Courts'   for

                  achieving the said purpose.

         4.11 Model  to  follow  for  bringing  the  proposed

                  legislation

                       (a)            Kerala Model, 1976

                       (b)            Andhra Model, 1986

                       (c)            To amend and recast Section 6 of                                                                  HAS

                       (d)      To  omit  Section 6 altogether and add

                                an explanation to Section 8.

                       The Commission solicited  opinion  on  the

                  important  question as to which model should be

                  followed  if  it  were  to  recommend   a   new

                  legislation   for  the  purpose  of  conferring

                  rights on daughters.  Out of 67 respondents  24

                  favoured   the  Andhra  Pradesh  model  and  22

                  favoured the  Kerala  Model.    Some,  however,

                  favoured the recasting of Section 6 of HSA, and

                  few  others suggested that section 6 be omitted

                  altogether.

         4.12 Placing    restriction    on   the   right   of

                  testamentary disposition

                       The majority favoured imposing restriction

                  on the right of testamentary disposition.    22

                  respondents  suggested  to limit it to one half

                  of the share  in  the  property  and  an  equal

                  number  suggested  to  limit it to 1/3rd of the

                  same.

Chapter V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

         5.1 Conclusions

                       To suggest suitable reforms to any law, it

                  is necessary to know the existing provisions of

                  the law and the mischief sought to be remedied.

                  In the previous chapters provisions of  section

                  6  of  HSA  and the various inequities emerging

                  therefrom have been discussed.  In this chapter

                  the conclusions of our study are enumerated and

                  thereafter we have made some suggestions.

         5.2   Under the Mitakshara system, joint  family

                  property  devolves  by  survivorship within the

                  coparcenary.  Mitakshara  Law  also  recognises

                  inheritance  by succession but only to property

                  separately  owned  by  an  individual  male  or

                  female.  (Para 1.3.3)

         5.3   Dayabhaga  school neither accords right by

                  birth nor by survivorship though a Joint family

                  and its coparcenary is  recognised.    It  lays

                  down  only  one mode of succession and the same

                  rules of inheritance apply whether  the  family

                  is   divided   or  undivided  and  whether  the

                  property is ancestral or self-acquired.    Sons

                  and  daughters  become  coparceners only on the

                  death of the father and get equal rights in the

                  family property.  (Para 1.3.4)

         5.4   The framers  of  the  Indian  Constitution

                  took  note  of  the  adverse  and  discriminary

                  position of women in society and  took  special

                  care as per articles 14,15(2)and (3) to prevent

                  discrimination against  women.   Part IV of the

                  Constitution through the  Directive  Principles

                  of State Policy further provides that the State

                  shall  endeavour to ensure equality between man

                  and woman.(para 1.5)

         5.5   Despite  the   Constitution   guaranteeing

                  equality   to   women   there  are  still  many

                  discriminatory aspects in the law of succession

                  against a  Hindu  woman  under  the  Mitakshara

                  system  of Joint family as per section 6 of the

                  HSA   as   only   males   are   recognised   as

                  coparceners.  (Para 2.4)

         5.6   The States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil  Nadu,

                  Maharashtra  and  Karnataka  have  amended  the

                  provisions of  HSA  effecting  changes  in  the

                  Mitakshara  coparcenary  of the Hindu undivided

                  family.  These four states  have  declared  the

                  daugher to be coparcener.  The state of Kerala,

                  however,  has  totally  ablished  the  right by

                  birth and put an end to the Joint Hindu  Family

                  instead of tinkering with the coparcenery.  The

                  consequence   of  this  de-recognition  of  the

                  members of the family,  irrespective  of  their

                  sex, who are governed by Mitakshara Law is that

                  they  become  tenants  in  common  of the joint

                  family property and become full owners of their

                  share.(paras 3.2 & 3.3.1)

         5.7  Recommendations

                       As a first reaction the Law Commission was

                  inclined  to  recommend  the  adoption  of  the

                  Kerala  Model  in  toto as it had abolished the

                  right by  birth  of  males  in  the  Mitakshara

                  coparcenary  and  brought  an  end to the Joint

                  Hindu Family.  This  appeared  to  be  fair  to

                  women  as they did not have any right by birth;

                  but on further examination it became clear that

                  if the joint Hindu family  is  abolshed  as  on

                  date  and there are only male coparceners, then

                  only they would hold as tenants in  common  and

                  women  would  not  get  anything more than what

                  they are already  entitled  to  by  inheritance

                  under section  6  of HSA.  So the Commission is

                  of the view that it would be  better  to  first

                  make  daughters  coparceners  like sons so that

                  they would be entitled to and get their  shares

                  on  partition  or  on  the  death  of  the male

                  coparcener and hold thereafter  as  tenants  in

                  common.  We recommend accordingly.

         5.7.1  The Andhra Model does not do full  justice

                  to  daughters  as it denies a daughter, married

                  before the Act came into force,  the  right  to

                  become a coparcener.  Obviously, this was based

                  on  the assumption that daughters go out of the

                  family on marriage and thereby cease to be full

                  members of the family.  The  Commission  wanted

                  to   do  away  with  this  distinction  between

                  married and unmarried daughters,  but  after  a

                  great  deal  of  deliberation and agonizing, it

                  decided,  that  it  should  be  retained  as  a

                  married  daughter has already received gifts at

                  the  time  of   marriage   which   though   not

                  commensurate  with  the  son's  share  is often

                  quite substantial.  Keeping this  in  mind  the

                  distinction  between  daughters already married

                  before the commencment of  the  Act  and  those

                  married thereafter appears to be reasonable and

                  further would prevent heart-burning and tension

                  in the family.  A daughter who is married after

                  the  commencement  of the Act will have already

                  become a coparcener and entitled to  her  share

                  in  the  ancestral  property  so  she  may  not

                  receive any substantial  family  gifts  at  the

                  time of  her  marriage.    Hopefully, this will

                  result in the death of the evil dowry system.

         5.7.2  The Kerala Act abrogated the  doctrine  of

                  pious  obligation of the son whereas the Andhra

                  Model and others  which  conferred  coparcenary

                  rights  on  unmarried  daughters  are silent in

                  this regard  except  that  the  daughter  as  a

                  coparcener  is  bound by the common liabilities

                  and presumably can become a karta in the  Joint

                  family.   We  recommend  the  abrogation of the

                  doctrine  of  pious  obligation  and  that  the

                  daughter be a coparcener in the full sense.

         5.7.3  Consequently,  as above indicated, we have

                  recommended a combination  of  the  Andhra  and

                  Kerala Models.    We  are of the view that this

                  synthesis is in keeping  with  justice,  equity

                  and family harmony.

         5.7.4  We are also of the view that Section 23 of

                  HSA which places restrictions on  the  daughter

                  to claim partition of the dwelling house should

                  be deleted    altogether.        We   recommend

                  accordingly.

         5.7.5  As noticed  earlier  quite  often  fathers

                  will  away  their property so that the daughter

                  does not get a share even in his  self-acquired

                  property.  Apart from this, quite often persons

                  will  away their property to people who are not

                  relatives, thus totally depriving the  children

                  and   legal   heirs   who   have  a  legitimate

                  expectation.  Consequently, there  has  been  a

                  strong  demand for placing a restriction on the

                  right of testamentary disposition.   But  after

                  due deliberation the Commission is not inclined

                  to the placing of any restrictions on the right

                  of a Hindu deceased to will away property.

         5.8   Accordingly, we have drafted a Bill called

                  the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Bill, 2000  so

                  that   the   recommendations  made  by  us  are

                  hopefully  implemented  with   speed   by   the

                  government.   This  Bill  has  been  annexed as

                  Appendix 'A'

                                  (JUSTICE B.P.  JEEVAN REDDY)(RETD)

                                              CHAIRMAN

  (MS JUSTICE LEILA SETH)(RETD)(DR.N.M.GHATATE)(MR.T.K.  VISHWANATHAN)

        MEMBER                      MEMBER        MEMBER - SECRETARY

  DATED:  4.5.2000

(Appendix A)

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2000

A

Bill

                    further to amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

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

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

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

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

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

(a) by birth become a coparcener;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son,

and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter:

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

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

(3) When a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000, his interest, in the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary  property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and, -

(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son;

(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got  had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and

(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be.

          Explanation. – For the purpose of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not.

(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment)  Act, no court shall  recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law,  of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt:

          Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000, nothing contained in this sub-section  shall affect –

(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or

(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2000  had not been enacted.

Explanation.- For the purposes of  clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement  of  the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2000.

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

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

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

ANNEXURE - II

ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE OF

LAW COMMISSION

               The Law Commission's  questionnaire  is  divided

        into three  parts.    Part I deals with information about

        the respondent;  part  II  elicits  respondent  views  on

        issues   relating   to  various  aspects  and  impact  of

        coparcenary and lastly part II invites comments from  the

        respondents.  The respondents were asked to answer in yes

        and no  and  were  given  several  choices.   Sixty Seven

        respondents had  replied  to  the  questionnaire.      30

        respondents  were  mainly  from the Department of Law and

        rest were either advocates, sociologists or NGOs etc.

                       The responses are indicated below:

               1.      Mitakshara Joint Family to be retained or not?

                       Out of the 67 respondents, 49  opposed  its

                 retention  and  17  favoured  it and one did not

                 reply (vide Q.1).

               2. Reasons  favouring   retention   of   Mitakshara

                 Coparcenary

                       The  respondents  favouring  retention have

                 done so mainly for the reason that  it  protects

                 the  financially weaker members and gives better

                 rights to males as per parts(b) and (a) of Q.2.

               3. Reasons negativating the retention of Mitakshara

                 Joint Family

                       The respondents were asked to give  any  of

                 the  following  grounds  as per Q.3 in case they

                 chose to negative the  retention  of  Mitakshara

                 System - (a) the changes would affect harmony in

                 the  Family;  (b)  that legislative changes have

                 already eroded the utility  of  the  coparcenary

                 system;  (c)  that  it  would have a detrimental

                 effect on the running of  family  business;  (d)

                 that  idle  members of a joint family prosper at

                 the expense of the hard working members and  (e)

                 that  coparcenary  system  discriminates against

                 women.

                       33  respondents   preferred   part(e);   21

                 part(b);  12  part(a); 8 part(d) and 29 favoured

                 more than one part.

               4. Steps   to   be   taken   to    remove    gender

                 discrimination

                       The    Law    Commission    suggested   two

                 alternative choices  in  Q.4  to  remove  gender

                 discrimination.

                       The   majority  that  is,  35  respondents,

                 favoured part(b) which  stated  that  Mitakshara

                 Coparcenary  should  be  retained but the gender

                 bias to remove by conferring upon daughters  the

                 right  to  become  a  coparcener  like a son; 22

                 respondents  favoured  part(a),  that   is,   to

                 abolish the coparcenary right by birth.

               5. Daughter becoming a Karta in the Joint Family.

                       33  respondents  preferring the daughter to

                 become Karta in the Joint Family  of  Mitakshara

                 Joint   Family   is   retained;  10  respondents

                 negativated it and 8 did not reply as per Q.5.

                       It may  be  noted  that  this  question  is

                 directly  relevant  to  Q.No.1,  where  only  17

                 respondents favoured the retention of Mitakshara

                 system  whereas  it  may   be   seen   that   33

                 respondents have preferred the daughter becoming

                 Karta  in  the  Joint  Family if Joint Family is

                 retained.

                       Several  choices  are  listed  in  Q.6  for

                 negativating the daughters becoming a Karta such

                 as   -  (a)  women  are  incapable  of  managing

                 properties  or   agriculture;   (b)   they   are

                 incapaable  of  running  a  business;  (c)  once

                 married they move away from their families;  and

                 (d)  they  are  susceptible to the influences of

                 the husband or his family; (e) other reasons.

                       11 respondents opted  for  part(c);  5  for

                 part(d) and 13 did not reply to this question.

               6. Conferring equal rights upon married & unmarried

                 daughters.

                       36  replies  favoured the view that married

                 daughters   should   have   equal   rights    in

                 coparcenary  property as per Clause(b); 14 opted

                 for Clause (a) by limiting this right in  favour

                 of unmarried daughters at the time of passing or

                 enforcing of the enactment and 8 respondents did

                 not reply as per Q.7.

               7. From what period should the Act (when passed) be

                 applicable?

                       21  respondents  did not reply; 10 favoured

                 choice in part (a) that is to give retrospective

                 effect from 10 to 15 years prior to the  passing

                 of   the  Act;  15  for  part(b)  for  providing

                 protection to buyers of property in good  faith;

                 12 respondents were in favour of part(c) for not

                 affecting  the  vested  rights  and 11 opted for

                 part(a) of Q.8.

               8. Should coparcenary  right  be  confered  on  the

                 mother   of  the  coparcenary  by  the  proposed

                 legislation?

                       51 out of 67 respondents  answered  in  the

                 affirmative;  5  in  the negative and 11 did not

                 respond to Q.9.

               9. The Commission vide Q.10 pointed out that  there

                 may  be attempts to defeat the provisions of the

                 proposed legislation by effecting partitions  or

                 by sales.   Should such transactions be declared

                 invalid before the  enactment  of  the  proposed

                 legislation?

                       The   respondents   were  asked  to  choose

                 between yes or no.  The majority,  that  is,  58

                 respondents   answered   the   question  in  the

                 affirmative; and 7 were against it;  and  9  did

                 not reply.

               10. On  the  question  of preference of abolition of

                 special rules discriminating  against  daughters

                 for devolution of agricultural interests.

                       The   majority   that  is,  54  respondents

                 answered Q.11 in the affirmative and only 7 were

                 against it, 6 did not reply.

               11. Dwelling House

                       43 respondents preferred amendment  of  law

                 to  provide  that partition can be sought by the

                 female heirs also even if  there  was  only  one

                 ancestral home,  as  in part(a) of Q.13.  On the

                 issue whether married daughters be given a right

                 of residence  in  the  dwelling   house.      39

                 respondents  expressed  themselves  in favour of

                 this cause of action and  24  were  against  it.

                 Further, 27 respondents favoured the deletion of

                 section  23  of  HSA altogether and 26 opted for

                 course of action mentioned  in  part(b),  namely

                 making section 23 inapplicable to dwelling house

                 belonging  to Hindu female intestates in respect

                 to Q.14 and others did not reply.

                       The majority of the respondents,  that  is,

                 61   have  expressed  themselves  in  favour  of

                 special protection to widow's right to reside in

                 the dwelling  house  as  per   Q.15.      ;   26

                 respondents  have opted for the course of action

                 in part (b) of Q.16  by  declaring  that  family

                 dwelling   house  cannot  be  alienated  without

                 widow's  consent   or   without   providing   an

                 alternative  accommodation  to her after she had

                 agreed to the sale of  the  dwelling  house;  29

                 respondents   opted   for   part(a),  to  confer

                 `Homestead' rights on  the  wife/widow  like  in

                 U.S.A., Canada , and few have not replied to the

                 question.

               12. Inheritance   Certificate   on   death   of   an

                 individual by all heirs indicating  their  share

                 in the property

                       In answer to  Q.   No.  17, the majority of

                 the respondents that is 55 favoured  the  taking