Devolution Of Property Of A Hindu Female Dying Intestate


In the lawful sense, the word ‘Succession’ suggests the transmission or going of rights starting with one then onto the next.

However, in this contemporary world, Women’s property rights become a noteworthy issue that has been gotten light in the previous scarcely any decades because of a few reasons. In India, both the concepts (property and progression) are represented generally by the individual personal and religious laws, which by one way or another show that they will in general comply with older patriarchal norms and family structures.


Section 16 of the Act gives the way and sets out the request for dissemination of a deceased female Hindu among her heirs which is to be perused alongside Section 15 of the Act setting out the general guidelines of succession.

Sub-section (1) sets out the request for devolving the property of a Hindu female dying intestate, without making a will to as:

  1. Firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband,
  2. Secondly, upon the heirs of the husband.
  3. Thirdly, upon the father and mother
  4. Fourthly, upon the heirs of the father, and
  5. Lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.


Sub-Section (2) constrains a few limitations on Sub-Section 1 of the equivalent or we can say the two special cases, if a Hindu female passes on without leaving any issue, as:

  1. For any property inherited by her from her father or mother, that property will lapse not as indicated by the request set down as in sub-Section (1) however upon the heirs of her father, and
  2. For any property inherited by her from her husband or father-in-law, that property won’t degenerate as per the request set down in sub-Section (1) yet upon the heirs of her significant other.

Henceforth, we said that these two gave restrictions or special cases are limited to just the property inherited from the father, mother, husband and father-in-law of the female and not to the property procured by gift or other by other devices.


1. Rule 1: Rule 1 expressly proclaims that among the heirs identified in entries (a) to (e) of Sub-section (1), those heirs alluded to in earlier section are to be wanted to those in any ensuing section and those remembered for a similar section are to succeed at the same time.

2. Rule 2: Rule 2 expresses that if there should arise an occurrence of the children of a predeceased son or daughter, they will not take per capita with the son and daughter of the intestate yet will take per stripes for example the children and the predeceased son or daughter will prevail to the property of the intestate as though the predeceased son or daughter was alive at the hour of legacy.

3. Rule 3: Rule 3 is relevant just when succession is as far as entry (b), (d) or (e) of Sub-section (1). This standard rule 3 is to be summoned when under Rule 1 the heirs of the husband or the father or the mother are to be found out for reason for dispersion of property.


According to Section 20 of the Act, a child who was in the womb at the time of the death of an intestate and who is thusly brought into the world alive will have a similar option to acquire to the instate as though the person had been conceived before the passing of the instate, and the legacy will be regarded to vest in such a case with impact from the demise of the instate.


1. A dies unmarried leaving her enduring MB by her mother’s brother and MSD her mom’s sister’s little girl. In the event that A’s mom had passed on following A, she would have been enduring just by MB and MSD, her brother and sister’s little girl, individually. There being no heir of An under entries (a)- (d) all the property of A will lapse upon the heir of the other. With the mother as the beginning stage, MB and MSD will take, at the same time by reference, to the entries (d) read with class I of the schedule (as the main heir of the mother’s father).

2. A dies leaving her enduring H her husband, S1 and S2 her two children, SS the child of S a predeceased son, WS3 the widow of S3 another predeceased son, D1 and D2 two daughters, DD the girl of D a predeceased daughter, and B her brother. All these with the exception of WS3 and B will prevail to A’s property howsoever procured as heirs remembered for entry (a) of subsection (1). They will take at the same time and to the prohibition of WS3 and B. WS3 could have been a heir just under entry (b) and B could have been a heir just under entry (a) and are not qualified for succeed, as there are heir remembered for entry (a). In this, S1, S2, SS, D1, D2, DD and H who rather than SS left more children they would likewise have taken just one offer among themselves and couldn’t have guaranteed an equivalent offer with S1, S2 and others.


1. Omprakash v. Radhacharan (2009) 15 SCC 66: For this situation, a female being referred to lose her husband and was widowed inside a quarter of a year of her marriage. After her significant other’s demise, she was likewise determined out of the wedding home by her husband’s blood relations. She at that point came back to her parental home and her parents financed her education, following which she acquired work and became independent. At the hour of her passing, the deceased female had a generous aggregate of cash which she had earned in the wake of leaving her husband’s home. However, upon her demise, her husband’s sisters set a case to her property.

The Supreme Court considered Section 15 cautiously. They acknowledged that the property of the female was totally self-gained and furthermore that the group of the spouse had neither added to her instruction, nor loaned her any help during her lifetime. However, yet, the judges refused to deviate from the established law. The Supreme Court expressed that ‘simply because a case gives off an impression of being hard would not lead us to summon diverse translation of a rule which is in any case impermissible.’ The heirs of the husband were granted the property.

2. Ammini E. J. v. Association of India AIR 1995 Ker 252: For this situation, the high court thought about that it will be flaws that in any event, when the Hindu society was flourishing towards gender equality, the succession laws discriminate. It was said that an enactment which separates just based on sex, can be addressed, as was done when §§ 10 and 34 of the Indian Divorce Act were revised.


Finally, we can undoubtedly presume that the privileges of a lady to a property change in light of different components like religion, culture, the economic well-being of the lady and the general public to which she has a place.

The property of a female Hindu dying intestate without making a Will to goes as per the provisions made in Hindu Succession Act, 1956 while the dissemination of ladies’ legacy, other than the individuals who are Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and Muslims, is represented by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

This Article is Authored by SHIVAM SHARMA, 4th Year B.A LL.B Student at IME Law College.

Law Corner

Leave a Comment