This section deals with the distribution of the property of a Hindu woman who is dying. It states that; 15. General rules of succession among Hindu women.— This brings us to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 as we know it today. I propose, albeit briefly, that some important provisions be discussed. The law deals with the inheritance of the property of a male Hindu (Article 8), the rights of a Hindu woman to property (Article 14), the succession of the property of a Hindu (Article 15) and especially inheritance in the case of Kopelz property (Article 6, which I will discuss in a later article). The law establishes a uniform and comprehensive system of succession. The basis of inheritance of the property of a Hindu woman who dies without a will would therefore be the source from which such a Hindu woman came into possession of the property and the type of inheritance that would decide the type of decentralization decided by the Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram v. Teja Singh AIR 2002 SC 1. In a subsequent decision in S.R. Srinivasa v. Padmavathamma (2010) 5 SCC 274, the Court held that, in the case of a woman`s property without emissions, this special provision was adopted to prevent the property from falling into the hands of foreigners. Although inheritance law is a very important and essential part of any case law, it is also a very interesting subject but extremely difficult because of its subtleties.
Inheritance to property has led to wars between siblings around the world in the past. The era of kings was over, the arena then moved to the courts in the modern world. The bitterness of property has always been the cause of long disputes. In another case of Radhamma and Others v. H.N. Muddukrishna (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that a Hindu`s undivided interest in the common family property can be alienated by will under section 30 of the Hindu Inheritance Act 1956. The court noted that if a Hindu dies after the law comes into force, leaving behind interests in the Mitakshara-Koparzenar property, that interest is transferred to the surviving coparzeists according to the rules of survival. However, there is an exception to this rule, which is set out in the explanation of Article 30, which specifies that the interest of a male Hindu in the co-park property of Mitakshara may be alienated by him by will or other testamentary disposition. Every person who professes or follows a particular religion must be aware of the rights and obligations arising from his personal rights.
Prior to the enactment of the four laws governing Hindus, these complex issues were settled by the Dharma, the Vedas, and other sources considered divine or formulated by the Acharyas and Rishis who were familiar with the study of religion and its various subtleties recognized as law. This was because it was firmly assumed that morality and ethics, combined with self-imposed restrictions and conditions, were opportune to regulate society. This was the law of the land in the past and any violation was considered a violation of the law. This was the basis of the laws relating to Hindus that evolved over time to become the current laws of Hindu law as we know them today.1 This section proposes a unified inheritance system for the property of a Hindu woman who dies intestate. The section groups the heirs of a female estate into five categories as entries (a) to (e) in subsection (1). This subsection is the general way to follow a female intestate. Again, as with a male Hindu, the heirs mentioned in entry a) inherit during their lifetime, at the same time, but to the exclusion of heirs in the other entries. The actual difference in the type of succession is highlighted in subsection (2), which in turn consists of two parts. This subsection is an exception to subsection (1).
Overall, the two exceptions are that if the woman dies without leaving any problem, then: (1) with respect to the property she inherited from her father or mother, that property is not passed on to the father`s heirs in accordance with the order set out in the five entries in subsection (1); and (2) in respect of property inherited by her husband or stepfather, it is not transferred to the husband`s heirs in the order indicated in the five entries. In the case of a Hindu woman who has acquired property herself, subsection 15(1) applies and not section 15(2). The difference is that the first part would cover all categories of heirs and the source of the property itself would be acquired, while the second subsection, as far as it is concerned, deals not only with a situation in the case where the woman has no children, but also with the source of the property either of her father or mother, but also from her husband or stepfather. As is obvious, the section indicates the mode of succession of a Hindu man dying intestate. The section`s schedule divides the heirs into classes. The difference between the two categories of heirs is that, while Class I heirs take over assets at the same time, Class II heirs take back assets to the exclusion of heirs upon subsequent registration. To explain this, suppose a male Hindu dies and leaves behind a wife, a son and a daughter, with the three heirs in the class, I will take the property at the same time. However, if a male Hindu dies without Class I heirs, in such a situation, the Class II heirs are entitled to his property. But there is a difference here. To explain this, suppose a male Hindu dies without heirs in class I, and suppose his father is alive, the father who is the first to enter class II is entitled to the son`s property to the exclusion of heirs in the other entries. Only if there is no heir present in a particular entry, the heirs of the next entry are entitled to that property.
Articles 9 to 13 contain the rules for distribution. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) applies to property acquired by gift or by will or other document, by order or order of a civil court or by an arbitral award, if the terms of the gift, will or any other act, judgment, order or award prescribe limited succession in such property. Explanation: The interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara-Koparzar property or the interest of a member of a Tarward, Tavazhi, Ilom, Kutumba or Kavaru in the property of the Tarward, Tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru, regardless of what is contained in that law or in any other law currently applicable, shall be considered property which he may dispose of within the meaning of this Law. Section. «Section 30 of the Act permits the court order of a male Hindu in a mixed Mitakshara domain,» noted Judges A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi in the Radhamma case and others against Muddukrishna and others (after the 2005 amendment, any Hindu, male or female, can do so; but the case referred to the situation before 2005) In another case of Sundara Adapa v. Girija (1962), The court recognized the practice of not transferring ownership by will if the status of the Mitakshara property was not separated. The court justified this by the fact that at the time the Koparzener`s will took effect, his interest in the undivided family would have been deprived by the survival of the other copalms. In Valliammai Achi v. Nagappa Chettiar et al. (1967), the Court held that the property of a common family is not entitled to be given by will and that the mere transfer of Mitakshara`s co-parkary property by will does not change the title of ownership. It was also noted that no Cografene can transform a common family property into absolute property, since it is common knowledge that the share that a communicator receives in the division of ancestral property is the property of ancestors in relation to his male problems.
Four laws governing Hindus, namely the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, came into force in 1955 and 1956. The laws have taken care to incorporate some of the old aspects, associated with progressive thinking, into their application. In fact, many of the principles of the ancient law have been introduced into modern Hindu law. However, some aspects have been abandoned, which has been criticized by many as decimating the ancient Hindu laws. But the words of J.D.M. Derret, a jurist on Hindu discipleship, in his book entitled «Introduction to Modern Hindu Law,» all say it. He wrote: «In India, inheritance law has been reformed so recently and so completely that no one has to fear dying intestate, that is, without leaving a will capable of taking effect. In a sense, in the Hindu Succession Act, Parliament has made a will for all, and those who propose to make a will should ask themselves whether not all eventualities have been foreseen by Parliament and whether their own preferences would be an improvement. p.8 General rules of male succession The second part of the article has been subject to interpretation by the court on several occasions.
In a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in V. Tulasamma & Ors v. V. Sesha Reddy (reported in AIR 1977 SC 1944), the Court held that such an improvement provision must be interpreted broadly, ruling that property, although transferred as a limited estate but for the purpose of subsistence to the woman, would confer full ownership. This article cannot have a claim if a Hindu woman has never acquired property or if, after acquiring it, she has accidentally lost her title by alienation, capitulation or otherwise. To explain the ethics of the provision, the Supreme Court held in C. Masilamani Mudaliar & Ors v The Idol Of Sri Swaminath Swamy, (1996) 8 SCC 525 that if the acquisition of the property attracts paragraph [1] of Article 14, paragraph [2], does not come into play.