The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986 & the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

In one minute

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been amended twice on the point of daughters. The Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act 13 of 1986) gave daughters a birthright in coparcenary property in Andhra Pradesh. It is deemed to have come into force on 5 September 1985.

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005) did the same for the whole of India from 9 September 2005. It also omitted sections 23 and 24 and section 4(2). Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) settled how the new section 6 works.

Legal provision

• Act 13 of 1986 (Andhra Pradesh): inserted Chapter II-A, sections 29A, 29B and 29C, into the 1956 Act for Andhra Pradesh.
• Act 39 of 2005, section 3: substituted a new section 6.
• Act 39 of 2005, section 2: omitted section 4(2).
• Act 39 of 2005, sections 4 and 5: omitted sections 23 and 24.
• Act 39 of 2005, section 6: in section 30, "disposed of by him" became "disposed of by him or by her".
• Act 39 of 2005, section 7: added four more class I heirs to the Schedule.

Meaning and definition

Under the old Mitakshara rule, only sons were coparceners by birth. A daughter was not a coparcener. The two amendments changed that. Section 6 now makes the daughter of a coparcener a coparcener by birth, in her own right and in the same manner as a son.

• Hindu Succession Act, 1956
  • 5 September 1985Andhra Pradesh: sections 29A to 29C (Act 13 of 1986).
  • 20 December 2004Cut-off date for protected partitions and dispositions under new section 6.
  • 9 September 2005New section 6 for the whole of India; sections 23, 24 and 4(2) omitted.
  • 11 August 2020Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma settles how section 6 works.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: the 1956 position

The 1956 Act applied one scheme of intestate succession to Hindus. Before 2005, section 6 dealt with a male coparcener's interest in Mitakshara property. Where he died leaving a female class I relative, a partition was assumed to have taken place immediately before his death (Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai). A daughter was not herself a coparcener.

Step 2: the Andhra Pradesh Amendment, 1986

Act 13 of 1986 received assent on 16 May 1986 and is deemed in force from 5 September 1985. It inserted Chapter II-A in the 1956 Act for Andhra Pradesh.

• Section 29A: notwithstanding section 6, the daughter of a coparcener becomes a coparcener by birth in the same manner as a son. She has the same rights, including the right to claim by survivorship, and the same liabilities. At a partition she gets the same share as a son. Property she gets this way is held with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and she can dispose of it by will. Clause (ii) does not apply to a daughter married before the commencement or to a partition made before it.
• Section 29B: when a female coparcener dies after commencement, her interest goes by survivorship to the surviving coparceners. If she leaves a child or a child of a pre-deceased child, it goes by will or intestate succession instead.
• Section 29C: gives a preferential right to acquire an interest in certain cases.

Step 3: the Amendment of 2005

The 2005 Amendment made five changes.

1. New section 6: the daughter of a coparcener is a coparcener by birth in her own right, with the same rights and liabilities as a son.
2. Section 4(2), which saved State laws on agricultural holdings and tenancy, was omitted.
3. Section 23 (dwelling house) was omitted.
4. Section 24 (certain remarried widows) was omitted.
5. Four more heirs were added to class I.

Step 4: new section 6 in detail

• Section 6(1): the daughter is a coparcener by birth, has the same rights, and is subject to the same liabilities. A proviso saves any disposition or alienation, including any partition or testamentary disposition, made before 20 December 2004.
• Section 6(2): her coparcenary property is held with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and she can dispose of it by will.
• Section 6(3): when a Hindu dies after the Amendment, his interest devolves by will or intestate succession and not by survivorship. The coparcenary property is deemed to be divided as if a partition had taken place. This is covered in the note on notional partition.
• Section 6(4): after the Amendment, no court recognises a right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for an ancestor's debt on the sole ground of pious obligation. The proviso protects debts contracted before the Amendment.
• Section 6(5): the section does not apply to a partition effected before 20 December 2004. "Partition" means a partition by a registered deed or by a court decree.

Step 5: other changes of 2005

Section 30 now lets a Hindu woman dispose of property by will in the same words as a man ("by him or by her"). The schedule now lists sixteen class I heirs, because four more were added.

Step 6: Vineeta Sharma (2020)

A three-Judge Bench held that a daughter is a coparcener by birth. Her father need not have been alive on 9 September 2005. Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal were overruled in part, and Danamma was partly overruled (para 130 of the judgment). The details are in the note on the daughter's right to ancestral property.

Exceptions and special rules

• Saved transactions: section 6 does not affect a disposition, alienation or partition made before 20 December 2004.
• Pious obligation: debts contracted before the 2005 Amendment are still enforceable under the old rule (proviso to section 6(4)).
• Other States: the Act text also prints Karnataka's sections 6A to 6C and Tamil Nadu's sections 29A to 29C, which gave daughters similar rights.
• Andhra Pradesh clause (iv): the equal share on partition does not reach a daughter married before the 1986 Act's commencement.

Don't confuse: the 1986 State law and the 2005 central law

Point	Andhra Pradesh Amendment, 1986	Central Amendment, 2005
Area	Andhra Pradesh	Whole of India
Commencement	Deemed from 5 September 1985	9 September 2005
Provision	Sections 29A to 29C	Section 6 as substituted
Married daughter	Equal share on partition (clause (ii)) does not reach a daughter married before commencement	Section 6 has no exclusion for married daughters

Common mistakes

• Saying that Parliament gave daughters the birthright first. Andhra Pradesh did it in 1986.
• Saying that the 2005 Amendment began on 20 December 2004. That date is the cut-off for saved partitions. The Amendment began on 9 September 2005.
• Saying that section 6 needs the father to be alive on 9 September 2005. Vineeta Sharma says it does not.
• Saying that sections 23 and 24 still apply. The 2005 Amendment omitted them.

Apply it

Problem

Lalitha was born in 1990 in a Mitakshara family in a State that had no earlier law on daughters' coparcenary rights. Her father is a coparcener. In 2024 her brother says that she has no coparcenary right because the 2005 Amendment came after her birth.

Issue

Is Lalitha a coparcener, though she was born before the 2005 Amendment?

Rule

Section 6(1) makes the daughter of a coparcener a coparcener by birth. Vineeta Sharma held that she can claim rights from 9 September 2005, whether born before or after it.

Application

Lalitha is the daughter of a coparcener. No partition by a registered deed or court decree took place before 20 December 2004.

Conclusion

Lalitha is a coparcener with the same rights and liabilities as her brother.

Leading case laws

• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma

  Facts. Two Supreme Court benches had given conflicting views on amended section 6. A larger Bench heard the reference and decided it on 11 August 2020.

  Principle. A daughter is a coparcener by birth. She claims her rights from 9 September 2005 whether born before or after it. Her father need not have been alive on that date.

  Why it matters. It settled the meaning of the 2005 Amendment and overruled Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal.

• Prakash v. Phulavati

  Facts. Phulavati sued for partition. Her father died on 18 February 1988. The Karnataka High Court applied the 2005 Amendment to her claim.

  Principle. The Court held that the 2005 Amendment rights apply to living daughters of living coparceners on 9 September 2005.

  Why it matters. It was overruled in part by Vineeta Sharma (2020), which held that the father need not be alive.

• Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum

  Facts. Khandappa died in 1960, leaving a widow, two sons and three daughters. The widow sued for 7/24th of the joint family property.

  Principle. A notional partition is assumed immediately before the death, and the heir gets that share plus her share in the deceased's interest.

  Why it matters. It explains the pre-2005 section 6 that the 2005 Amendment replaced.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Act 13 of 1986 (Andhra Pradesh): sections 29A to 29C, deemed in force from 5 September 1985.
• Act 39 of 2005: new section 6 from 9 September 2005; sections 23, 24 and 4(2) omitted.
• Cut-off for saved partitions: 20 December 2004, by registered deed or court decree (section 6(5)).
• Section 6(4) ends the pious obligation for later debts.
• Vineeta Sharma (2020): the daughter is a coparcener by birth; the father need not be alive.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Daughter’s right to inherit ancestral property and impact of recent changes in law
• Notional Partition
• Dwelling House