Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Flashcards

Escheat Doctrine

• If no heirs are present in Class-I, Class-II, agnates, and cognates, the property goes to the government. The government essentially becomes the ultimate heir, ensuring that property does not remain unclaimed or unused indefinitely. This prevents potential issues of abandonment and ensures the property can be reallocated for public use or benefit.

Full Ownership for Hindu Females

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 granted Hindu women the right to hold and dispose of property as absolute owners. This landmark legislation aimed to address historical inequalities and empower women economically by giving them complete control over their assets.

• This was a significant step towards gender equality, facing opposition from conservatives who believed that women's property rights would disrupt traditional family structures and male dominance. The Act challenged existing patriarchal norms and sparked considerable debate within Indian society.

• Apex Court: Section 14 aimed to recognize gender equality and elevate women's economic status by removing restrictions on their ability to own, manage, and transfer property. The Supreme Court emphasized the transformative nature of this provision in promoting social justice and women's empowerment.

Historical Background

• Vedic age references suggest women could own property, but theory differed from practice. While ancient texts mentioned women's property rights, these were often not enforced or recognized in broader society. The gap between legal provisions and actual practices highlighted the limitations women faced in exercising ownership.

• Quantum of property held by women was small, and disposal rights were limited. Women typically held limited types of property, such as jewelry or personal items, and their ability to sell, lease, or transfer property was significantly restricted compared to men.

• Patriarchal setup restricted women's independence to maintain marital duties and household affairs. The prevailing social norms and expectations confined women to domestic roles, limiting their participation in economic activities and property ownership. This structure reinforced male control over resources and decision-making.

• Narada: Transactions of women were invalid without husband's or son's sanction. This ancient legal principle emphasized the dependence of women on male relatives for any economic activity, effectively denying them independent agency in property matters.

• Prior to 1937, women's property was classified as 'stridhan' and 'non-stridhan'. This classification determined the extent of a woman's control over her property, with 'stridhan' providing greater autonomy compared to 'non-stridhan'.

• 'Stridhan': Property received as gifts, presents, or acquired through own efforts; women had larger disposal powers. This category included items like wedding gifts, inheritances from female relatives, and earnings from personal skills, giving women relatively greater freedom in managing and transferring these assets.

• 'Non-stridhan': Property inherited from relations; women had limited control. This category typically included property inherited from male relatives, over which women had restricted rights, often requiring male consent for disposal or transfer.

Stridhan Categories

• 'Saudayika': Gifts from parents and relations; women had absolute alienation power. These gifts, often received during marriage ceremonies, gave women unrestricted rights to sell, mortgage, or gift the property as they wished.

• 'Non-saudayika': Property from non-relations; alienation curtailed after marriage, requiring husband's consent. This type of property, while owned by the woman, was subject to limitations imposed by her marital status, reflecting societal control over women's economic autonomy.

• Non-stridhan property included inheritances and property received at partition, with women as limited owners. These assets were subject to restrictions on disposal, reflecting traditional norms that prioritized family interests over individual women's rights.

• Limitations on disposal except in cases of need, religious or charitable purposes, or spiritual benefits to husband. Women could only transfer or sell non-stridhan property under specific circumstances, underscoring their limited economic agency.

• Heirs of the husband had no power to dispose of the property while she was alive. This provision offered some protection to women, ensuring they could not be dispossessed of their property by their husband's relatives during their lifetime.

• Limited interest terminated on death or remarriage (legalized in 1856). Upon a woman's death or remarriage, her limited property rights typically reverted to her husband's family, highlighting the temporary nature of her ownership.

• Material assets were typically owned and inherited by men, termed ‘purushdhan’. This term emphasized the traditional dominance of men in property ownership, relegating women to a secondary role in economic matters.

• Women's rights were gifts or for maintenance; responsibility of maintaining female relations fell on men. Women's property rights were often viewed as provisions for their upkeep rather than independent entitlements, reinforcing their dependence on men.

Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937

• Aimed to convert maintenance liability to a woman's concern, share of deceased husband went to widow. This Act sought to alleviate the financial burden on male relatives by granting widows a share in their deceased husband's property, enabling them to support themselves.

• Limited ownership until death or remarriage, then reverted to husband's heirs. The widow's ownership was restricted to her lifetime or until remarriage, after which the property would pass to her husband's legal heirs, reflecting the prevailing patriarchal norms.

• Purpose: Enable women to maintain themselves, replacing burden on male relations with self-sustenance. The Act aimed to empower women economically, reducing their dependence on male family members and promoting their self-reliance.

• Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act passed in 1937, amended in 1938. These legislative efforts marked initial steps towards granting Hindu women greater property rights, although significant limitations remained.

• Applied prospectively to non-agricultural property and impartible estates. The Act's scope was limited, excluding agricultural land and estates that could not be divided, thus restricting its impact on a significant portion of property ownership.

• Applied to Hindus under Mitakshara, Dayabhaga, and customary law of Punjab. This ensured that the Act encompassed various Hindu legal traditions, providing broader coverage across different regions and communities.

• Section 2 repealed pre-Act customs and laws conflicting with the Act. This provision aimed to eliminate discriminatory practices and legal principles that contradicted the Act's objectives, promoting uniformity in property rights.

• Preamble: To amend Hindu law and give women better property rights. The Act's stated intention was to reform existing laws and enhance the property rights of Hindu women, reflecting a progressive shift in legal thinking.

Section 3 Provisions

• (1) Dayabhaga school: Widow gets the same share as a son in intestate property. Under the Dayabhaga system, the widow was entitled to an equal share of her deceased husband's property as his sons, strengthening her financial position.

• Provided that the widow of a son shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving and shall inherit in like manner as a son’s son if there is no surviving son of such predeceased son. This provision extended inheritance rights to the widows of predeceased sons and grandsons, ensuring that they were not left destitute.

• Provided further that the same provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis , to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. This further clarified that the same inheritance principles applied to the widows of predeceased descendants, reinforcing the protection of their rights.

• (2) Other schools: Widow gets the same interest in Hindu joint family property as the deceased husband. In other Hindu legal schools, the widow received the same interest in the joint family property as her deceased husband, providing her with a means of support.

• (3) Interest devolving on a widow is a limited women’s estate, with the right to claim partition like a male owner. Although the widow had a limited estate, she had the right to demand partition of the property, similar to a male owner, giving her greater control over her share.

• (4) Act doesn't apply to estates descending to a single heir or property under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Act's limitations excluded certain types of property, such as those governed by primogeniture or the Indian Succession Act, thus restricting its overall impact.

Primary Changes

• Act governed devolution of a male Hindu's property, not a female's property. The Act primarily focused on how a male Hindu's property would be distributed upon his death, rather than addressing the inheritance rights of female Hindus.

• Succession to a male Hindu’s property allowed the widow to inherit with him, equal to his share. This change enabled the widow to inherit alongside other heirs, such as sons, ensuring she received a substantial portion of the property.

• Widows had the right to claim partition, but got a limited interest, with survivorship applying if no partition occurred. Widows could demand a division of the property, but their interest remained limited, and if no partition took place, the property would pass through survivorship.

Impact on Coparcenary Concept

• Changes to separate property inheritance modified earlier laws, strengthening the widow's position. The alterations in inheritance laws enhanced the widow's status by providing her with a greater share and more secure rights in the property.

• Rights granted to the widow in coparcenary property were revolutionary, impacting the concept of coparcenary. The extension of property rights to widows within the joint family system brought about significant changes in the traditional structure of coparcenary.

• Act provided for widow substitution in the coparcenary; her presence defeated survivorship. The Act allowed the widow to step into her deceased husband's position in the coparcenary, preventing the property from passing solely to male members through survivorship.

• She enjoyed her husband’s share but wasn't a coparcener; couldn't be a Karta but remained a joint family member. The widow was entitled to her husband's share of the property, but she did not become a coparcener herself, nor could she act as the Karta (manager) of the family.

• Empowered to claim partition and demarcation of share; Karta represented her in family matters until partition. The widow had the authority to demand a separation of her share of the property, and until such partition, the Karta would act on her behalf in family affairs.

• She was entitled to possess and use the property, but on death or remarriage, the share reverted to coparceners. The widow could possess and utilize the property during her lifetime, but upon her death or remarriage, her share would return to the remaining coparceners.

Succession to Woman’s Estate

• The Act was silent, and where she inherited from her husband, property went to husband's heirs. The Act did not specify the rules for succession to a woman's estate, and if she had inherited the property from her husband, it would pass to his heirs.

• For an undivided share, it went to surviving coparceners. In the case of an undivided share, the property would pass to the surviving coparceners, maintaining the joint family's control over the assets.

Share Acquisition Mode

• Act silent about mode; widow entitled to ‘same interest’ as husband, creating confusion. The Act did not clearly define how the widow acquired her interest, leading to uncertainty and varying interpretations by the courts.

• Husband acquired an interest by birth, while she could only take it on his death. The husband's interest arose by birth in the coparcenary, whereas the widow's interest was contingent upon his death, highlighting the differing bases of their rights.

• She was held not to be a coparcener, simply a member of the joint family. Courts clarified that the widow was not a coparcener but merely a member of the joint family, further delineating her rights and status.

• Share was fluctuating until partition and passed via survivorship if no partition was sought. The widow's share was subject to change until a formal partition took place, and without partition, the property would pass through survivorship to other coparceners.

• View: She took by inheritance, not survivorship, as a non-coparcener. Legal opinion generally held that the widow acquired her interest through inheritance rather than survivorship, given her non-coparcenary status.

Unchaste Widow

• Act didn't address; conflicting judicial opinions on whether an unchaste widow could inherit. The Act did not address whether a widow who was considered unchaste could inherit property, resulting in conflicting judgments from different courts.

Maintenance

• Purpose: Hindu widow shouldn't depend on others, but economically empowered. The underlying goal was to ensure that Hindu widows were not financially dependent on others but were economically self-sufficient.

• Classical law: Maintenance rights out of property were for her as joint family inheritance rights were denied to her. Traditional legal systems provided maintenance rights to widows because they were typically excluded from inheriting joint family property.

• Inheritance rights seen ‘in lieu of maintenance,’ maintenance rights extinguished. The grant of inheritance rights was often viewed as a replacement for maintenance rights, leading to the extinguishment of the latter.

• Act didn't apply to impartible estates and agricultural property, widows retained maintenance rights. In cases where the Act did not apply, such as impartible estates and agricultural property, widows continued to retain their maintenance rights.

Limited Ownership Converted into Full Ownership (1956)

• Section 14 converted to full ownership and ended confusion about the widow's share by defeating survivorship. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, transformed limited ownership into full ownership, resolving ambiguities surrounding the widow's share by overriding the principle of survivorship.

• A notional partition ascertains share. A theoretical partition is conducted to determine the widow's rightful share in the property, establishing her claim.

• For widows with limited ownership, act provisions made them full owners, enabling property disposal. The Act's provisions converted widows with limited ownership into full owners, granting them the authority to dispose of the property as they wished.

• It abolished the concept of a woman’s estate as being different from a man’s ownership. This eliminated the distinction between a woman's estate and a man's ownership, promoting gender equality in property rights.

Aims:

• Remove the disability on women holding property as limited owners. The primary objective was to eliminate the legal impediments that restricted women from holding property. These included restrictions based on gender, marital status, or traditional customs.

• Convert existing limited ownership into absolute ownership from the Act's commencement. The Act aimed to transform existing limited ownership rights into absolute ownership rights from the day the Act came into effect. This ensured immediate and comprehensive empowerment for women who already held some form of property.

• It converted the limited interest of a widow into an absolute estate. Specifically, the Act sought to convert the limited interest of a widow (often referred to as a "widow's estate") into an absolute estate. This provision was designed to grant widows complete control and ownership rights over the property they possessed.

• Two conditions were required to be satisfied before the limited estate matured into an absolute estate, viz.:

  • she possessed the property as a limited owner; and

  • she had not remarried.

Possession

• The act converted limited into absolute interest if property was possessed as a limited owner. The Act stipulated that to convert limited interest into absolute interest, the property must be legally possessed by the woman as a limited owner.

• ‘Possessed by’ indicates legal possession. The phrase "possessed by" implies that the woman must have legal possession of the property. This means she should have the right to control and manage the property under the law.

• Actual physical possession without ownership right doesn't apply, with examples of lessees, licensees, or mortgagees. Physical possession alone is not sufficient if the person does not have a legal ownership right. For instance, lessees, licensees, or mortgagees may have physical possession of the property, but they do not have ownership rights unless specified in the legal agreements.

• Section 14 doesn't enlarge rights/title, but protects it Section 14 of the Act is designed to protect existing rights and titles rather than to enlarge them. The section ensures that women who already possess property rights are not deprived of them.

Transfer of Limited Interest

• Limited estate was generally inalienable; transfers required legal necessity or indispensable religious duties. A limited estate typically cannot be transferred to another person unless there is a legal necessity or for indispensable religious duties. This restriction ensures that the property is used for essential purposes and protects it from being easily alienated.

• The limited interest ‘possessed’ by a Hindu female, would mature into an absolute estate. If a Hindu female possesses a limited interest in a property, that interest can mature into an absolute estate once the conditions specified in the Act are met. This provision empowers women by granting them full ownership rights over time.

• But a widow losing possession by transfer before the Act, her ownership wouldn't mature. If a widow transfers her possession of the property before the Act comes into effect, her ownership rights will not mature into an absolute estate. This clause prevents women from transferring their limited interest to others before the Act and then claiming absolute ownership.

• Alienee holds a limited estate terminable on the widow's death/remarriage. An alienee, or the person to whom the property is transferred, holds a limited estate that is terminable upon the widow's death or remarriage. This condition maintains the temporary nature of the transfer and ensures that the property eventually reverts to the appropriate heirs.

Lost Possession Transfer

• Limited ownership wouldn't mature if widow lost possession via unauthorized transfer. If a widow loses possession of the property due to an unauthorized transfer (i.e., a transfer not permitted by law), her limited ownership will not mature into absolute ownership.

• Alienee's ownership is temporary, linked to the widow's life. The alienee's ownership is temporary and directly linked to the widow's life. The alienee can only enjoy the property as long as the widow is alive.

• Reversioners can challenge imperfect transfers; donee-daughter wasn't eligible for full ownership. Reversioners (the legal heirs who will inherit the property after the widow's death) have the right to challenge transfers that are not in accordance with the law. For example, if a daughter receives the property as a gift but is not eligible for full ownership under the legal provisions, the reversioners can contest the transfer.

• Possession as a trustee didn't mature into absolute ownership. If a woman possesses the property as a trustee (i.e., holding it for the benefit of someone else), that possession will not mature into absolute ownership. The property is held in trust and is not considered her personal asset.

Possession Regained

• Temporary loss didn't impact conversion of limited to full ownership. A temporary loss of possession does not affect the conversion of limited ownership to full ownership, provided the woman regains possession and meets all other conditions specified in the Act. This ensures that brief disruptions do not jeopardize her ownership rights.

Reconveyance

• Reconveyance after Act converted to the law if such right was called into question subsequent to it.

• reconveyance in favor of the widow, even after the commencement of the Act, will convert it into an absolute estate in her favor, if her right was called in question subsequent to it.

• Reconveyance can revert negative results from the first transfer. Reconveyance is a legal mechanism that can reverse the negative consequences of the initial transfer. The reconveyance would then create an absolute estate in her favor, provided that the original transfer was challenged after the Act came into effect.

• Reversioners have mere spes successionis; death customs on reconveyance day over first event under Hindu law

*In Daya Singh v . Dhan Kaur the court held that till the widow was alive, the reversioners did not have any right in this property. Their interests could be described as mere spes successionis , viz., a bare chance of inheritance, which is purely contingent. Secondly, on the date of death of the widow, the law in operation on that day, will govern the succession or devolution of this property.

Hypothethical Scenarios

• Manipulation cases are seen to be a loophole that provides collusive transfers that are aimed at giving ownership under an unauthorized transfer. One significant loophole involves collusive transfers designed to manipulate the rules and grant ownership through unauthorized means. These schemes often involve multiple parties working together to circumvent legal requirements, making it difficult to detect and prosecute such fraudulent activities.

Loss of Possession by Remarriage

• Limited estate must be help at commencement & not remarried with a caveat, three cases will render the agreement void:

  • She dies before the Act is passed. Even if a woman meets all other conditions, if she dies before the Hindu Succession Act is enacted, her limited estate cannot mature into absolute ownership. The law applies prospectively, meaning it affects future situations and not those already concluded.

  • when she relinquishes her estate or transfers it in favor of another person and parts with the possession; If a woman relinquishes her estate (i.e., voluntarily gives up her rights) or transfers it to someone else and gives up possession before the Act comes into effect, she cannot later claim absolute ownership under the Act. The condition requires continuous possession and ownership until the Act's enactment.

  • when she remarries.

    • A widow remarrying will be presumed to be dead as far her rights in the former husband ‘s property are concerned, and the reversioner’s right to succeed will be immediately activated. This Act was repealed in 1983 by the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage (Repeal) Act, 1983. Remarriage of a widow triggers the presumption that she is legally dead with respect to her rights in her former husband’s property, and the rights of the reversioners (those who would inherit the property if she were deceased) are immediately activated. This provision ensures that the property devolves to the next rightful heirs.

Voiding a Remarriage Contract

• Even if the marriage was void, ‘it did not obliterate the disqualification from inheritance by reason of remarriage’. According to the Court, the voidness of marriage could not be termed as an absolute nullity. It further observed that a ‘statutory prohibition (of bigamy) cannot be treated to be in aid of the conferment of a right, it is a prohibitory statute and not a conferring statute. Even if the remarriage is later found to be void (e.g., due to bigamy), it does not erase the legal disqualification from inheriting the property of the first husband. The court explained that the voidness of the marriage does not nullify the fact that the woman remarried, which is the disqualifying event. The prohibition against bigamy is a restrictive law, not one that grants rights, so it cannot be used to argue that the remarriage should be ignored.

Supreme Court

*In a previous judgment,3 193 ‘Prima facie, the expression "whoever… marries" must mean "whoever… marries validly or whoever marries and whose marriage is a valid one".’ The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the term "whoever marries" implies a valid marriage. This means that for a marriage to be legally recognized for the purposes of inheritance, it must meet all the legal requirements for validity.

Babulal Kewani v State of Bihar

• the Court held that as the remarriage was subsequent to the enactment of the 1956 Act, her limited rights had already matured into absolute ownership and her remarriage would not have any adverse effect on it. Here, the court clarified that if the remarriage occurred after the 1956 Act came into effect and the woman’s limited rights had already matured into absolute ownership, the remarriage would not negatively impact her property rights. This reinforces that the key factor is whether the limited rights had already transformed into full ownership before the remarriage took place.

Constitutional Validity of Section 14(1)

*Family law provisions have often been challenged on grounds of gender discrimination. Family law provisions, including those related to property rights, are frequently challenged in court on the basis that they discriminate against one gender or the other. Such challenges seek to ensure equality and fairness within the legal framework.

*In practice, the economic dependence of a woman, on her male relations, continues till date, yet in theory, the incapability to acquire property as a full owner has been removed. Despite legal advancements, many women still face economic dependence on their male relatives. Although the legal barriers to acquiring property as a full owner have been eliminated, societal and economic factors continue to limit women's ability to achieve full economic independence.

Stereotyping

The males are viewed as the natural and rightful inheritors of the property, and the (now not so new) inheritance rights of women, are perceived as an encroachment on their legitimate rights to take the totality of their parent’s property. In many societies, there remains a cultural stereotype that males are the natural and rightful inheritors of property. The inheritance rights granted to women are sometimes viewed as an intrusion on what is perceived as the legitimate entitlements of male family members to inherit all of their parents’ property.

Acquisition of Property

The property that a woman may acquire before or after the commencement of the Act, shall be now held by her as a full owner and not as a limited owner. Any property that a woman acquires, whether before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, will now be held by her as a full owner. She possesses all the rights and powers associated with absolute ownership.

By Inheritance

• Thus, where a Hindu man died, leaving behind two widows who inherited his properties, in 1946, the nature of the estate that they had inherited was a limited estate. This interest matured into an absolute estate on the passing of this Act. For example, if a Hindu man passed away in 1946, leaving his properties to two widows, the widows initially held a limited estate. However, with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, their limited interest automatically converted into an absolute estate, granting them full ownership rights.

By Device

• Where a widow was put in possession of the property by a deed executed by her husband in 1945, giving her a life estate, upon the commencement of the Act, she would become a full owner and competent to alienate the property. Suppose a husband executed a property deed in 1945 granting his wife a life estate in the property. Upon the commencement of the Act, the widow's life estate would automatically convert into full ownership, giving her the right to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the property as she sees fit.

• In Karmi v Amru:

  A Hindu man executed a Will in favor of his wife, expressly stating that she alone was to enjoy the property during her lifetime and it was only after her death that the property should go to his three daughters. In 1955, the widow allotted some parts of the property to her two living daughters and retained the remaining portion with her, as the third daughter had by that time, died. She later executed a gift of that portion and the same was challenged by the heirs of the deceased daughter, for want of competency. The court held that she was the absolute owner of the property and competent to dispose it of by gift.

• where the testator, as an absolute owner of the property, wants to give a life-estate to the widow or to any other female, not because she needs to maintain herself out of it, but because the testator wanted her to be the legatee and the beneficiary under the Will, it will remain a life interest and would not convert into an absolute ownership, despite the fact that such female was in possession of this property on the date of the commencement of this Act. If the testator clearly intended to grant a life-estate to the widow or any other female beneficiary (not for maintenance purposes but because he wanted her to be the beneficiary), then the estate will remain a life interest. It will not convert into absolute ownership, even if the female beneficiary is in possession of the property when the Act commences. Courts will honor the intentions of the testator as explicitly stated in the will.

At Partition

• Any property that she received at a partition, in which she had only a life interest, after 1956, was held by her as an absolute owner, even if she was given the property with some restrictions.
  

  In the present case it was found that the partition deed stated this, and she occupied the same, her one-third share matured into an absolute ownership after the coming into force of this Act. If a woman received property during a partition and was initially granted only a life interest in that property, after the enactment of the Act, her interest would be converted into absolute ownership, regardless of any restrictions that were initially placed on it.

In Lieu of Maintenance

• Where the widow receives property in lieu of her maintenance, under a compromise before the Act, her limited rights mature into absolute rights, under a will or settlement, etc. If a widow receives property as part of a compromise agreement in exchange for her maintenance rights before the Act came into effect, her limited rights to that property would automatically convert into absolute rights. This principle applies under a will, settlement, or any other legally recognized arrangement.

By Gift

• Any property that she receives under a gift would be held by her as an absolute owner Anytime a woman receives property as a gift, she will hold full and absolute ownership of that property. The mode of the gift doesn't matter, the property would belong to her and controlled by her.

By Personal Skill or Exertion

• Any property that was acquired by a woman by her skill or exertion or through art or a special learning, in the nature of a salary or a share in profits, with the help of a trade or business, was always considered her exclusive property and continues to be so even now. if a woman earns property through her own skills, efforts, artistic endeavours, or specialized knowledge, whether in the form of a salary, profits from a business, or trade, it has always been and continues to be recognized as her exclusive property. This underscores her right to independently acquired assets.

Purchase and Prescription

• A property purchased with the help of her own funds, would be the absolute property of a woman, with full powers of disposal over it. If a woman purchases property using her own funds, that property is considered her absolute property, and she has complete authority to manage, sell, or transfer it as desired. This ensures women control what they buy themselves.

Acquired in Any other Manner

• The property that a woman acquires in any other manner than the ones specified above, will be held by her as an absolute owner. Includes property that were given under decrees and awards, or through adverse possession. Any property that a woman acquires through means not specified in other clauses—such as property received under court decrees, awards, or through adverse possession—will be held by her as an absolute owner. This ensures no matter means property are obtained woman could control and manage the process.

Property Acquired After the Commencement of the Act

• The property could have been acquired by her before the commencement of the Act.. In order to further the success of a woman to inherit the property as an absolute owner under the Act a phrase was used:

  whether acquired before or after commencement of the Act.

Limited Estate Expressly Conferred under a Will or an Award [Section 14(2)]

*It protects the power of an owner to settle the property in accordance with his wishes. Section 14(2) is designed to protect the right of a property owner to decide how the property will be distributed according to his desires, especially through wills and awards.

*If you are getting restricted interest of the property under an award then this ownership would not mature into an absolute interest. If a woman receives a restricted interest in property under a formal award—such as a court order or arbitration decision—her ownership typically does not mature into an absolute interest. The terms of the award specify the extent and limitations of her rights.

Rule for cl. (1) or by cl (2) for any property under gift or will:

• It depend whether a woman receive or not the property
  

  Because the granted wanted that she have a more limited interest.

*Andhra Pradesh High Court came out with Three Proposition:

*1. The female gets an interest from an instrument or document that is written.

*2. The documents creates a right for the first time, in her favor; and

*3. The language embodies the terms that provide a limited estate to her.

SUCCESSION TO THE PROPERTY OF A FEMALE INTESTATE

*Prior to 1956, the property of a woman went according to the rules provided under the uncodified Hindu law. To that it happened that their efforts were to secure property more than provide a succession. Before 1956, the distribution of a woman's property was governed by uncodified Hindu laws, which often focused more on protecting the property than ensuring equitable succession.

*Section 15 is Applicable to the Absolute property of a female

*1. Applies when a woman hold as a absolute owner, no matter how to get there. Section 15 applies solely to the absolute property owned by a female, irrespective of how she acquired it.

*2.The term “property” would included and divided interest in a Mitakshara co-parcenary in which a female was who dies leaving behind her son, daughter , or children of a pre-deseased son. The term "property" includes both full and divided interests in a Mitakshara coparcenary where the female dies leaving behind a son, daughter, or children of a predeceased son.

*Separate Schemes of Succession for Male and Female Intestates

*Provides for two entirely different schemes of succession because emphasis on conserving, protecting family, or a man bloodline. Hindu law provides separate succession schemes for male and female intestates, primarily to conserve and protect family assets and patrilineal bloodlines.

Scheme of Secession

• Her property is divided into: property that inherit from parents, property that a female Hindu had inherited from husband or father in law, or any other general property. A female’s property is categorized into: 1) property inherited from parents, 2) property inherited from her husband or father-in-law, and 3) general property acquired through other means.

General Property:

Section 15 provides:

General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus .— (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16— - a) firstly upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased