ABSTRACT
Inheritance law in India has undergone a significant transformation in pursuit of gender equality and social justice, particularly with the Enactment of Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005 which converted equal coparceny rights upon daughters. Despite this landmark judicial experience reveals persistent gaps and ambiguity with statutory framework. This article critically examined the evolution of Hindu inheritance laws The Constitutional Foundation of 2005 Amendment And key judicial interpretations that have shaped its application. It focuses on recent observations of the Karnataka High Court which identified an inadvertent gap in section 6 of Hindu Succession Act affecting the inheritance right of widows and mothers at the stage notional partition. The court called for a legislative reconsideration under schools the necessity of continuous reform to ensure clarity, equality and protection of vulnerable by the analysis these developments the article argues that inheritance Law reform must move beyond formal equality and address structure and drafting deficiencies to achieve substantive justice and legal certainty with India’s evolving family system.
KEYWORDS
Hindu succession Act, Inheritance law reforms, gender justice, coparcenary rights, Karnataka high court
Introduction
A major transformation came In Hindu succession [Amendment] in 2005 which recognized daughters as Coparceners With equal rights and liabilities as sons. This amendment was hailed as a landmark step towards gender justice. Yet legislative reform is never static as family structures evolve and the constitutional principle of equality deepens, the court continues to encounter gaps and ambiguities in law. The recent observation of Karnataka High Court on Section 6 of Hindus Succession Act illustrated that even progressive reforms may leave behind unintended consequences Requiring further legislative attention. The courts call to Parliament to reconsider and recast the provision reflects the dynamic nature of inheritance laws in India.
This article critically examines the evolution of Hindu inheritance law, significance of 2005 amendment, Key judicial interpretations and the Karnataka High Court’s intervention, while situating these developments within the broader objective of gender justice, legal certainty and social welfare.
Historical evolution of Hindu inheritance law
Prior to the codified Hindu inheritance was governed by ancient texts and customary practices, Particularly the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga School of Law. Under the Mitakshara System which prevailed over most of the India joined family property was held by a male member known as Coparcenary. Coparceners acquired rights in ancestor’s property by birth but women were excluded from this body. Daughters and Wives possessed limited rights of maintenance and residents but land ownership or management power over family property.
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 attempted to harmonize the diverse Customs by introducing a uniform scheme of Intestate succession. The act created a hierarchy for heirs and placed women such as a widows, daughter and mother in class 1 heirs, granting them the right to inherit property alongside their son. However, the law stopped short of reforming the concept of coparcenary.
This partial reform reflected the tension between tradition and modern constitutional values. While the 1956 Act dismantled several discriminatory practices, He did not fully realize the constitutional promise of equality under Article 14 and 15.
The 2005 amendment a constitutional milestone
The most transformative development in the Hindu inheritance law occurred in the 2005 amendment which replaced section 6 of the Act. The amendment declared that a daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as of her son. She acquired the same rights in Coparcenary Property and was subject to the same liabilities.
This change was revolutionary. It dismantled the male monopoly over ancestors property recognized women as an equal participant in joint family system The amendment was motivated by constitutional Commitments to equality international obligations under the conventions such CEDAW and decades of feminist advocacy demanding property rights as a foundation for women’s economic empowerment
However, the amendment’s drafting was not free from difficulty. Questions soon arose regarding its temporal application and the extent of rights conferred upon daughters whose fathers had died before 2005.
Judicial interpretation and Supreme Court clarification.
The Supreme Court ruled in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) that Amendment Section 6 applied prospectively, meaning that in order for a daughter to assert coparcenary rights, both the father and the daughter had to be alive on the date of the amendment. This interpretation diminished the goal of reform and prevented many women from benefiting from it.
This view was unsettled by Danamma v.Amar {2018} where the Court allowed daughters to claim shares even though father died prior to the amendment. Conflicting judgments create uncertainty.
This matter was Conclusively settled in Vineeta sharma v. Rakesh sharma {2020} Where three Judge Bench held that the right of daughter as coparcener is to be the birth, and their amendment app regardless of whether Father was alive in 2005. The judgment reaffirmed that amendment is remedial and intended to eliminate discrimination against women.
The Karnataka High Court’s intervention
Despite these advancements, new challenges have emerged. In 2025 the Karnataka High Court observed a serious drafting gap in the amendment of section 6. The court noted that while the amendments strengthen the rights of daughters, it failed to explicitly preserve the rights of widows and mothers at the stage of notional partition- A mechanism used to determine the share of deceased coparceners.
Under the pre-amended law, Widows and mothers are expressly recognized as a beneficiary in such partitions. The amendment provision however omitted this express recognition. The quotation describes this omission as unintentional and warns that it may result in unfair outcomes and more lawsuits.
The High court urged the central government to reconsider and recast section 6 to remove ambiguity and protect the inheritance rights of all class 1 heirs, including widows, mothers and widows of pre-deceased sons.
Implications for gender justice and social welfare
Inheritance law is inseparable from the question of social justice. Property ownership provides economic security, bargaining power within the household, and protection against exploitation. While the 2005 amendment empowered daughters, the vulnerability of widows and mothers often economically dependent and socially marginalized demands equal attention.
Ambiguity in the law disproportionately affects such vulnerable growth. Without explicit statutory protection widow and elderly mothers may face prolonged litigation and coercion within undermining the very objectives of inheritance reforms.
Need for legislative reforms and legal certainty
Progressive intentions must be matched by precise drafting. Ambiguous Inheritance rules generate conflict, delay Justice and burden the courts.
A legislative amendment clarifying the rights of widow and the mother would strengthen the coherence of the Hindu Succession Act and reinforce its alignment with Constitution values.
Conclusion
The journey of Hindu in law reflects India’s broader struggle between traditional and transformation from limited reforms of 1956 to revolutionary amendments of 2005 and the Supreme egalitarian’s interpretations in Vineet sharma the law has moved steadily towards equality The Karnataka High Court’s recent intervention serves as a reminder that reforms does not end with legislation It must evolve through constant engagement with social realities and constitutional principles.
True reform lies not merely in recognizing rights on paper but ensuring that law operates clearly fairly inclusively for every member of the family, daughter, widow women, mother and all heirs alike.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: NISHTHA JAIN
