CAN A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW CLAIM A SHARE IN HER FATHER-IN-LAW’S SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY UNDER THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT?

CAN A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW CLAIM A SHARE IN HER FATHER-IN-LAW’S SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY UNDER THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT?

A Critical Legal Analysis

Author: Garvita Mishra

Statutory Reference: The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005)

PART I – ABSTRACT

Whether a daughter-in-law has a right to claim a share in her father-in-law’s property is a question in Indian Hindu inheritance law that arises frequently and is often confused. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was amended in 2005. [1] [2] It sets out rules for when a Hindu dies without a will. [3] However, the laws’ class-based inheritance rules do not treat the daughter-in-law, the widow of a predeceased son, fairly. This article examines the statutory provisions governing claims, as analyzed in the Supreme Court judgments, and discusses the practical and legal limitations on the daughter-in-law’s inheritance rights in property that her father-in-law acquired himself. The paper ends with thoughts on what the law’s missing and suggestions to evolve for the better.

PART II — LEGAL FRAMEWORK & BACKGROUND

2.1.            Nature of Self-Acquired Property Under Hindu Law

Under Hindu law, property is divided into two types: first, ancestral property that belongs to the whole family [4]; and second, self-acquired property. Self-acquired property is property that a person acquires through their hard work, the money they earn, something they buy, or a gift that is not related to the family estate during their lifetime. It should be noted that no one in the family receives a share of self-acquired property simply because they were born into the family. [5] The person who owns the self-acquired property has its ownership and can decide who gets it. Sections 8 to 13 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 talk about what happens to a Hindu’s property when he is deceased.

2.2.            Relevant Statutory Provisions

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 says that the property of a Hindu person who dies without a will goes to the people listed in Class I of the Schedule first. [6] If the property fails Class I, it goes to the people listed in Class II. After that, the property goes to the Hindu person’s relatives on their father’s side. If there are no relatives on the father’s side, then the property goes to the relatives on the mother’s side. This rule is very important because it determines who gets the property first and applies to all property a male Hindu bought with his own money. The order of priority determined among the heirs of a Hindu person is an important concept.

The First class of the Schedule included the widow, son, daughter, mother, son of a predeceased son, daughter of a predeceased son, and most critically, the widow of a predeceased son. The legal position of a daughter-in-law when her husband has died before his father is included in the class, but only if her husband died before his father did. It depends on what happened to her husband prior to his death. Thus, she has to have lost her husband and her son before she can be in Class I of the Schedule. [7]

Section 10 talks about the property division in Class I heirs. Rule 3 and Rule 4 under the section say that if a son died before his father, the son’s family gets one share collectively. Basically, this share is what the son would have gotten if he were still alive. The share is further divided into the son’s wife, the son’s son, and the daughters. So, the daughter-in-law does not get her share as the sons do. She gets a part of her husband’s share. [8]

Section 30 says that a Hindu person can decide what happens to their self-acquired property; this is called the “absolute testamentary power.” This is really important for the daughter-in-law because the father-in-law can choose not to leave her anything if he includes that in his will. [9]

Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 [10], says that the father-in-law has to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law but only if she cannot maintain herself from her own property or her late husband’s estate. It doesn’t mean that the widowed daughter-in-law gets a share of the father-in-law’s property when he dies. The father-in-law’s duty to help the widowed daughter-in-law is limited to maintaining her and does not confer on her the right to inherit a share of property.

PART III — JUDICIAL ANALYSIS & CASE STUDIES

3.         The Conditional and Derivative Nature of the Daughter-in-Law’s Right

The daughter-in-law’s Class I right is an entitlement she gets on her own. It is highly contingent. Especially before the husband’s death. If her husband is still alive when his father dies, he gets the inheritance as a class I heir, and the daughter-in-law acquires no concurrent share. The Supreme Court has affirmed that when a family member has already died, their family receives the inheritance, but only the share that the person who died would have received. Hence, the daughter-in-law’s Class I right is based on what her husband would have gotten.

3.1.            Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRs v. Ponnusamy & Ors. (2022)

The most recent and relevant landmark Supreme Court case, Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRs v. Ponnusamy & Ors. [11], questioned how a deceased intestate Hindu man’s self-acquired property is passed on. The Court said that this type of property is passed on to his heirs not by way of survivorship. Heirs under Class I all get an equal share. The Court made it clear that the rules for passing on this property, including the rules for a daughter-in-law and a predeceased son, are based on the law, not on custom or on who survives whom.

3.2.            Uttam v. Saubhag Singh & Ors. (2016)

In the case of Uttam v. Saubhag Singh & Ors. [12], the application of Section 8 was clarified by the Supreme Court. What happens to a joint family property on the death of the intestate? The joint family property is no longer joint family property, and the people who inherit it own it together as tenants in common. The Court said that a grandson cannot claim a share of the property simply because he was born into the family if the property had already been given to someone by the time his grandfather died. Under the law, no one else in the family can claim the property just because they were born into it. A daughter-in-law can only make a claim if she fits into the order of inheritance under the law. Hence, she cannot claim the property just because she is part of the family.

3.3.            Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen (1986)

The Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen [13], held that when someone inherits property under Section 8 of the Act, it becomes their property. It should not be assumed that this property becomes a part of the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) property. Also, when the father-in-law’s self-acquired property is given to the daughter-in-law as a Class I heir under Section 8, she gets it in her capacity as her individual property. She becomes the absolute owner of that property. It does not become part of any joint family estate.

3.4.            Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) and the Limits of the 2005 Amendment

The Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005 deleted most of the Mitakshara coparcenary structure. It gave daughters the same rights as sons regarding family property under Section 6. The Supreme Court made it clear in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [14] that daughters have these rights from birth, whether born before or after the 2005 amendment. It does not matter if their father was alive when the amendment was made. This decision and the amendment only helped daughters acquire property. However, the Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005 did not give daughters-in-law any rights.

3.5.            Testamentary Exclusion: The Father-in-Law’s Absolute Power

Under Section 30 of the Act, the father-in-law has the right to leave all of his property to anyone he wants, including a stranger he does not know, and she cannot do anything about it. The daughter-in-law only has rights to her father-in-law’s property contingent on his dying without making a will. The Law Commission of India noted this issue in its 174th Report. [15] The Commission said that Indian Hindu personal law does not protect heirs like the daughter-in-law from being left out of their fathers-in-law’s will. The Commission examined this issue and concluded that the law should be amended to better support female heirs, such as daughters-in-law.

PART IV — CRITICAL ANALYSIS, LOOPHOLES & REFORM SUGGESTIONS

4.1.            The Paradox of Formal Inclusion and Practical Exclusion

The daughter-in-law’s legal position of being considered a Class I heir, which is the most important category, and still her rights are not really her own. The daughter-in-law only gets a share on pure contingency and derivativity. Many scholars, including Mulla, who wrote in his Hindu Law [16], and Paras Diwan, who wrote in the Law of Intestate and Testamentary Succession [17], say that the daughter-in-law was added to Class I so that the family line of a son who died before his parents would not end. This was not done to give the daughter-in-law security or rights to the family property.

4.2.            Absence of Forced Heirship

The legislative gap in Indian Hindu inheritance law is the absence of rules on forced heirship or the doctrine of legitime. In India, a Hindu man with his self-acquired property can leave everything to someone else in his will. This means he can disinherit his son’s widow through a testamentary disposition, leaving her with nothing. There is no provision analogous to the requirement that a certain amount must be kept for the daughter-in-law. This creates legitimate financial issues for vulnerable women who can’t maintain themselves with no means. For example, Section 31 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 gives Christian and Parsi widows a protected share of one-third. It just does not apply to Hindu widows. The law treats Hindu widows differently. [18] They do not get the protection, such as that of Christian or Parsi widows.

4.3.            Disjunction Between Maintenance and Inheritance

Section 19 of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956 [19] provides that a father-in-law has to take care of his daughter-in-law if her husband dies and she cannot take care of herself with her money or her husband’s money. However, this does not mean she gets to keep her husband’s property. The law is like two roads that do not meet. One road is about the father-in-law helping his daughter-in-law with money if she needs it. The other road is about who gets to keep the property when someone dies. These two roads do not work together. This makes the daughter-in-law’s situation very critical and uncertain.

4.4.            Reform Suggestions

1. Minimum Share Protection: Parliament should consider amending the Hindu Succession Act to give the widow of a predeceased son a share. Similar to Section 31 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which applies to Christians and Parsis. Making sure she is not completely left out, even if there is a will.
2. Recognition of Economic Contribution: The law should take into account the daughter-in-law’s contribution to the household economy when deciding who gets what in terms of succession. This can be based on principles of marriage contribution recognised in law in countries and what the 174th Law Commission Report suggested. [20]
3. Harmonization of Maintenance and Succession: Amending the Hindu Succession Act and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act together could make the daughter-in-law’s maintenance entitlement a priority claim on the estate. This would provide more reliable protection than the current system, in which the person responsible must pay out of pocket.

PART V — CONCLUSION

Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a daughter-in-law, the widow of a predeceased son, is indeed a Class I heir. She is entitled to inherit a share in her father-in-law’s self-acquired property when he dies intestate. This right is clear from the schedule. The Supreme Court also said so in the case of Arunachala Gounder.

However, there are conditions that limit this right.

1. Her husband must have died before her father-in-law.
2. Her father-in-law must have died without making a will.
3. Her share is limited to the portion that belonged to her husband’s branch.

The 2005 Amendment helped daughters. But it did not change the daughter-in-law’s legal position much. The laws do not force property owners to leave their wealth to people. This means the daughter-in-law’s rights as a Class I heir are not protected in practice. The Law Commission reported that Hindu succession laws are not complete unless they ensure that people who helped build the family’s wealth receive a share. [21] Until these changes happen, a daughter-in-law’s claim to her father-in-law’s self-acquired property is more of a right than a real one.

It is recognized formally. However, it is fragile in practice.

REFERENCES

A.    Primary Sources

1. The Hindu Succession Act 1956 (Act No. 30 of 1956)
2. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 (Act No. 39 of 2005)
3. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 (Act No. 78 of 1956)
4. The Indian Succession Act 1925 (Act No. 39 of 1925)

B.     Case Laws

1. Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRs v Ponnusamy & Ors (2022) 11 SCC 520
2. Uttam v Saubhag Singh & Ors (2016) 4 SCC 68
3. Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma & Ors (2020) 9 SCC 1; AIR 2020 SC 3717
4. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v Chander Sen AIR 1986 SC 1753, (1986) 3 SCC 567

C.    Secondary Sources

1. Law Commission of India, ‘Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms Under the Hindu Law’ (Report No. 174, 2000)
2. Mulla’s Hindu Law (22nd edn, LexisNexis 2022)
3. Paras Diwan, Law of Intestate and Testamentary Succession (3rd edn, Universal Law Publishing 2012)

Footnotes:-

[1] The Hindu Succession Act 1956 (Act No. 30 of 1956) (hereinafter ‘HSA 1956’).

[2] The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 (Act No 39 of 2005), s 6.

[3] HSA 1956, ss 8–13 govern succession to the property of a male Hindu dying intestate.

[4] Mitakshara coparcenary is a feature of Hindu joint family law under which male lineal descendants up to the fourth degree acquire a birthright in ancestral property. No such birthright attaches to self-acquired property.

[5] Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753, (1986) 3 SCC 567 (SC) (Justices Sabyasachi Mukharji and RS Pathak), decided 16 July 1986; the Court held that property inherited by a son under s. 8 HSA 1956 devolves in his individual capacity and does not become HUF property.

[6] HSA 1956, s. 8.

[7] HSA 1956, Schedule, Class I—the ‘widow of a predeceased son’ is an expressly enumerated Class I heir.

[8] HSA 1956, s. 10, Rules 3 and 4.

[9] HSA 1956, s 30: ‘Any Hindu may dispose of by will or other testamentary disposition any property that is capable of being so disposed of by him or by her, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus.’

[10] The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 (Act No. 78 of 1956), s. 19: The father-in-law’s obligation is conditional upon the widowed daughter-in-law’s inability to maintain herself from her own property or from her late husband’s estate and ceases upon her remarriage.

[11] Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRs v Ponnusamy & Ors (2022) 11 SCC 520 (SC) (Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari), decided 20 January 2022. The immediate question before the Court was a daughter’s entitlement to her father’s self-acquired property; the judgment’s broader holding that such property devolves by inheritance under s. 8 HSA 1956 is directly applicable to all Class I heirs, including the widow of a predeceased son.

[12] Uttam v Saubhag Singh & Ors (2016) 4 SCC 68 (SC) (Justices Kurian Joseph and RF Nariman), decided 2 March 2016.

[13] Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, AIR 1986 SC 1753, (1986) 3 SCC 567.

[14] Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma & Ors (2020) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer, and M.R. Shah), decided 11 August 2020. The three-judge bench unanimously held that daughters are coparceners by birth, with effect from 9 September 2005, irrespective of whether the father-coparcener was alive on that date.

[15] Law Commission of India, ‘Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms Under the Hindu Law’ (Report No. 174, 2000) 3 (hereinafter ‘Law Commission Report No. 174’).

[16] Sir Dinshaw Mulla, Mulla’s Hindu Law (22nd edn, LexisNexis 2022) ch. on Succession.

[17] Paras Diwan, Law of Intestate and Testamentary Succession (3rd edn, Universal Law Publishing 2012) 48–52.

[18] For comparative reference, see Indian Succession Act 1925 (Act No. 39 of 1925), s. 31, which provides a widow’s one-third share in her husband’s estate, defeasible only in specified circumstances.

[19] Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, deals with the maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law by her father-in-law, subject to certain conditions.

[20] For a comparative perspective on matrimonial contribution and property redistribution upon death, see the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (UK), ss. 25(2)(a) and (f); and the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s. 79.

[21] Law Commission Report No. 174 (n 15) 3–5.