This Article is written by Shruthi Reddy L (a 2nd- year student from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad pursuing a Bachelor of Business Administration and a Bachelor of Legislative Law (BBA LLB).)
Introduction
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution explains the Right to Equality. Right to equality means being treated the same way regardless of gender, age, race, caste, sex or religion. Earlier the Daughter’s did not have the right to Property, but over time the law developed and gave them equal rights kindred to the son. The Right to Property is not a fundamental, but a constitutional right. According to article 31 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court simplified the meaning of property. The expression property is not confined to land alone according to article 300A. It consists of both tangible and non-tangible rights. The word property means money the interest in the property, contract and not just the money. The first act that dealt with the succession of the ancestral property is the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 according to the Hindu Law. Hindu Succession Act was amended in the year 2005, which entitled women to become the joint heir for acquiring the coparcenary property that is owning the property – top in the line of descent in a family. This gave women equal status to property similar to their male counterparts. The discrimination was thus ended and the daughters were treated with parity.
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 –
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended on 9th September in the year 2005. The intention behind amending the act was to remove the discrimination against women with respect to acquiring property. The ideology behind the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was that the women were not considered as a coparcener as they would get married and would belong to another family. This is clear discrimination and is against article 14 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the right to equality. The Hindu Succession Act was then amended and it was then that women were treated with equality and were given equal status along with the men. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended and the concept was termed as,’ Unobstructed heritage’. Which meant the heritage could be carried on without any obstructions. According to this concept the women were daughters were seen as coparceners and they acquired the coparcenary right on property by birth similar to how the son acquired it.
In Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma[1], the Supreme Court provided clarity on how in a joint family, the daughter had the right to inherit the property being a coparcener. The discrimination between the daughters and sons with respect to acquiring the property was done away with, with developments in the law.
Right to Property –
The Right to Property in India has evolved from being the fundamental right to a constitutional right. Earlier there four different types of systems prevalent in India like Zamindari System, Rotwari System, Mahalwari System and Jagidari System. The most familiar concept was that the land was owned by some rich people and rent was paid for its usage. But with the change of time, the difference between rich and poor needed to be abolished. It was at that time when article 19 (1)(f) was amended and the Right to Property ceased to be a fundamental right. According to the provisions of article 300A, the Right to Property is a constitutional right. It was in case of Vidhya Devi v The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors[2] the Supreme Court explained that the Right to Property cannot be denied to anyone and anyone depriving that right can only do so with the authority of law. With the 44th amendment and the insertion of article 300A, the differentiation between rich and poor was removed but it was only later that the daughters were given equal status as sons for acquiring the property as right to property is not gender-specific but there was discrimination that was present.
Daughter’s Right to Property –
Since birth, the person who has legal right over the ancestral property is known as Coparcener. The Coparcenary Right is usually inherited in Hindus from either from the father, grand-father or great grand-father. It was only after the year 2005, the daughters were also given the right to property and not only the sons, grandsons or great-grandsons. The sixth amendment in the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 removed the discrimination among daughters and sons and introduced intestate succession which means succession of property in absence of valid will and introduced testamentary which meant appointed through will. The Daughters are seen to have equal liability like son and they are entitled for partition of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and to dispose of share according to her will in the coparcenary property.
Married Daughter’s Right to Property –
The daughter will continue to be a coparcener but won’t be a member of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), after the marriage. The married daughter can become the Karta of the HUF if she is the eldest coparcener of the father’s HUF. The married daughter is entitled to partition too. The child shall be entitled to get the share of the married daughter after her death. The Daughter can only gift her share in HUF by way of will and not when she is alive. After the death of the daughter, the legal heirs automatically become the acquirers of her property.
Conclusion –
The first law dealing with the property according to the Hindu Law was the Hindu Succession Act, 1955. It was later amended as it was discriminatory on grounds of gender. The simple reason was that daughters were to be sent to another house and thus they weren’t given coparcenary rights. This was amended in the year 2005 by amending the Hindu Succession Act, 1955 through the 44th amendment. Thus the daughters were also granted the right to property unlike to only sons which were according to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Now the laws have changed along with time which is appreciable. The amendments prove that the Right to Equality guaranteed by article 14 of the Indian Constitution is enforced. In various landmark cases, the importance of giving the daughter equal rights along with the son was held. It is of no doubt that during the early time, the land belonged mostly to the rich people but even that was abolished and significant laws were introduced. The Right to Property of Daughters is not ceased on their marriage. All this shows the prominence given to women and their rights and the gender equality that is supposed to be prevalent in any reverent society as a whole.
[1] Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma (2020), SCC ONLINE SC 641
[2] Vidhya Devi v The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors SC DB Appeal 60-61 of 2020
