HINDU WIDOW PROPERTY RIGHTS: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

A final project submitted in partial fulfillment of the course Family Law - II, Semester 4th, in the
academic year 2017-2018.

SUBJECT: FAMILY LAW - II

APRIL, 2018

CHANANKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, 800001

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in the L.L.B. (Hons.) Project Report entitled “Hindu

Widow Property Rights: Historical Perspective” submitted at Chanakya National Law

University, Patna is an authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of Prof.

1
Pooja Srivastava. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am

fully responsible for the contents of my Project Report.

Sakshi Poddar

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researcher takes this opportunity to express her profound gratitude and deep regards to her
guide Prof. Pooja Srivastava for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant
encouragement throughout the course of this project. The blessing, help and guidance given by
him time to time shall carry the researcher a long way in the journey of life on which the
researcher is about to embark.
The researcher is obliged to staff members of Chanakya National Law University, for the
valuable information provided by them in their respective fields. The researcher is grateful for
their cooperation during the period of her assignment.
Lastly, the researcher would like to thank almighty, her parents, brother, sisters and friends for
their constant encouragement without which this assignment would not be possible.

SAKSHI PODDAR

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………….5

AIMS & OBJECTIVES…………………………………………………………………………...6

HYPOTHESIS…………………………………………………………………………………….7

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………..8

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE………………………………………………………………….9

WIDOW PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER STATUTORY LAW………………………………..17

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS……………………………………………………………………19

CONCLUSION & SUGGESSTIONS…………………………………………………………...21

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………….23

4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this part the researcher outlines the research strategy, sources of data, the research method and
the second part deals with review of literature.

 Research strategy

The research held with respect to the given topic was an applied one, but not new. As such, the
proposed research took the form of a new research but on an existing research subject.

 Sources of Data

Secondary data is used in this project. Secondary data are the data collected by a party not related
to the research study but collected these data for some other purpose and at different time in the
past. If the researcher uses these data then these become secondary data for the current users.
These may be available in written, typed or in electronic forms. A variety of secondary
information sources is available to the researcher gathering data on an industry, potential product
applications and the market place. Secondary data is also used to gain initial insight into the
research problem. Secondary data is classified in terms of its source – either internal or external.
The present study relies on information drawn from various secondary sources including books,
journals, and government survey reports.

 Research Methods

This project is based upon doctrinal method of research .It has been done after a thorough
research based upon intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the project.

5
AIM :

To critically analyze the historical aspect of the Hindu widow’s property rights.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To study the property rights of a Hindu widow in her husband’s family.

2. To study the property rights of a Hindu widow in her father’s family.

6
HYPOTHESIS:

A Hindu Widow has property rights in the family of her husband.

7
 I. INTRODUCTION
In the historical development of humanity, in the proliferation of human civilization and in the
social economy of the world, woman has always been considered as an important part as man. At
the same time she has always been treated as an inferior creature as compared to their male
counterparts. This inferior status of the woman exists not merely in their households and in the
society but also in the matter of privileges and right.1 It is so because our legal system also
develops itself on the basis of prevailing norms of social sphere and these social norms and
values put tremendous effect on the legal system. Thus the effect of social status and position of
women shows its impact over conventions and laws of our society also. Our Constitution in its
preamble provides for Justice - social, economic and political, and with its declaration of equality
of man and woman through its numerous provisions e.g. Fundamental Right's and Directive
Principles. It envisages the ushering of new era wherein women as a citizen of India will be
treated as equal to man in all walks of life. It is indeed a great proclamation which ends an old
era and declares the principles on which the new era will be based. But it is that blueprint which
is however to be realized. It is one thing to enact a principle and it is another to actualize it in real
life. Though de-Jure rights and freedoms are provided with great enthusiasm but it does not
essentially mean that those rights and freedoms are actually realized. If we want to achieve these
rights and freedoms in reality it could be done only by adopting a very stern, active, ceaseless
and conscious struggle guided by a very clear and comprehensive perspective.2 But unfortunately
up till now, this milestone fails to convert this de-Jure equality into de-facto reality. There is still
a lot of gender discrimination almost in all walks of life. Though this gender in equality facets
itself in different forms, but the most tiresome one relates to the effective property rights of
women. It is one of the most controversial topics in the Hindu law. Because the Parliament by
enacting the Hindu Succession Act 1956,accorded those property rights to the women where by
she can constitute her independent rights of inheritance and independent stock of descent. Before
the passing of this Act, women’s right to inherit, own and control property are determined
primarily by the values and norms which are socially acceptable and the primary objective of

1
Prof. Khan, H Nazeer, Ambedkar on Gender Equality: Myth and Reality, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi
(2007), p. 173.
2
Raj Kumar, Women and Nation (Encyclopedia of Woman and Development Series), Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi (2000), pp. 156-157.

8
inheritance systems in Indian society has been to preserve property, especially landed property,
intact for male heirs.3 Though the Hindu Succession Act was passed with main objective of
ameliorating and to enhance the women’s economic position, but the real problem began when it
is going to be applied in reality. Since the question of woman’s inheritance rights are concerned
with immovable property, especially land, and our patriarchal structure does not allow women to
inherit the landed property. Even our customs (excluding, of course matrilineal customary law)
tend to limit women’s property only up to the movable contents e.g. ornaments and clothing
actually given to them at the time of marriage. Sometimes these customs allow them to inherit
from very near relation like the father and mother or some time from the mother only otherwise
it denies the right of inheritance to cognate kindred.4 Here if we analyze the historical
perspective of widow’s property rights, we find that though lot has been done in this direction
but much more is still left to be done.

3
J. Dancan. M. Derret, A Critique of Modern Hindu Law, N. M Tripathi Pvt. Ltd, Bombay (1970), p. 193.
4
Ibid., p. 194.

9
 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

1) PROPERTY OF WOMEN IN VEDIC AGE

During this age the Brahmins occupied the highest position in the socio-religious hierarchy and
they for legalizing their superiority adopted the method of relying upon dharamsastras. The
sources of these dharamsastras were supposed to be Hindu religious texts like the Vedas and
Smritis, approved customs and good conscience. The Vedas were religious hymns, perhaps 3000
years old, and the Samritis were collection of rules of conduct and explanatory principle based
on Vedas. The Samritis comprised texts, such as Manu Samriti which was written between 300
BC and 300AD and later on commentaries and digests. An important digest on all the samritis
written by Jimutvahana in 12th Century was Dayabhaga which got much acceptance in Bengal.
The Mitakshara which was again written in 12th Century is a running commentary on one of the
samritis called Yajanavalika written by Vijnaneshwara which was accepted in the rest of India.
Later on these two (digest and commentary) emerged as two

different schools known by the name Mitakshara and Dayabhaga. These two schools differed on
the subject of inheritance.5

Regarding the position of women in early Vedic society, women occupied the same position as
the man. There was complete gender equality in all spheres of life and women enjoyed great
respect, significant rights and privileges. A girl was free to get herself educated just as boys in
those days. During the Vedic period, studies started after the thread ceremony, which was called
'Upnayana Samskara'. In Rig Veda it was mentioned that who wore sacred thread were
considered capable of performing many responsible jobs. Many statements in the Vedic literature
indicate clearly that women were undergoing Upnayana Samskara, studied Holy Scriptures and
recited Mantras. With regard to the institution of marriage, women had also an effective say in
the selection of her life partner. The famous system of marriage by ‘Svayamvara’ had its origin
in Vedic literature. It was intended that man cannot perform various religious ceremonies alone.
For the performance of religious rites and ceremonies the presence of wife was must. A man was
believed to be incomplete so long as he does not have a wife. The wife wass said to be her
husband’s ‘Ardhanagini’ i.e. half of the man.

5
Jana Matson Everett, Women and Social change in India, Heritage Publishers, New Delhi (1978), p. 142.

10
During the Vedic period the husband and wife were treated as joint owners of the household. The
husband was required to take a solemn vow at the time of marriage that he would never
contravene the economic rights and interests of his wife. On the basis of this joint ownership
theory of husband and wife in the household, it was concluded in the Apastamba Dharmasutra
that the wife was entitled to incur normal expenditure on the household during her husband's
absence. Along with this joint ownership theory, another important fiction i.e. the fiction of
identity between the husband and wife also gave females right to inheritance. Brihaspati6, on the
basis of this fiction, declared that a widow to be entitled to succeed the estate of a sonless
husband in preference of all other heirs. So if husband and wife are treated as one and there is
joint ownership the question naturally arises as to how, in Hindu Law, the wife was deprived of
her right of ownership and inheritance on the death of her husband. On this question, Kane's
statement concisely summaries the position. Apastamba postulated the identity of husband and
wife in the religious matter. But this identity of the husband and wife was not accepted by the
ancient sages for secular or legal purposes. Later on with the passage of time there was a slow
recognition by the Hindu law writers of women’s right of inheritance as a natural corollary of her
joint ownership.7 But the theory of joint ownership of the husband and wife in the household
gave only minor advantages to the wife. She was given the right over her husband's property to
enjoy it as a usufruct and not as her absolute property. Thus it did not, however, secure for her
equality with the husband in the ownership of the property.

In Vedic times widow was not given right to inherit her husband's property. It seems that the
Vedic texts were definitely opposed to giving this right to her. Baudhayana states that the Vedas
declared no inheritance to a widow. Taittiriya samhita allowed her no share in her deceased
husband property. Apastamba also reject the widow as successor of her husband's property. But
he mentioned one exception to it. According to him a childless widow was entitled to succession
to her husband' estate. But as it is known in Vedic times the practice of Niyoga was prevailing so
it can be said that widows without sons were very few. Thus, a woman as maiden, as a wife and
as widows enjoyed very limited legal and economic status during Vedic times. She was not on
equal footing with men. But looking at her social status and prevailing circumstances of Vedic

6
Brihaspati, 25, 46-52 quoted in Samriti chandrika, Oriented Library Series No 48, Mysore Govt. 673.
7
B. Sivaramayya, Matrimonial property Law in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, (1999), p. 4.

11
times, it can be concluded that the legal status occupied by women at that time was by no means
embarrassing.

The theory that Hindu women are excluded from inheritance was started with the text of
Baudhayana, the reputed founder of one of the schools of Black Yajurveda. He was responsible
for not giving heritable rights to women. He could never regard women as capable of possessing
an independent status. According to him women were not known to be eligible for freedom. In
support of his views he contends:

The father protects woman in her childhood; the husband during her youth; the son in the old
age; woman ought not to have freedom.

This apparently has no bearing on women's rights of succession. But Baudhayana further
propounds that a women is not entitled to inherit property. In order to support his ideas, he brings
Veda to his aid. Replying on the text of the Veda to the effect that women are devoid of senses
and thus they are not the sharers in property. Thus he concludes that the Vedas declared no
inheritance rights to women. The later commentators and digest writers such as Haradatta, King
Partap Rudra Deva the author of Saraswati Vilasa, Mitra Mishra the author of Virmitrodaya have
also adopted the same base for excluding the women from inheritance rights. Though, later on it
was presumed by the scholars that the Vedic text cited by Baudhayana has nothing to do with the
inheritance rights of the women. They are of the opinion that Baudhayana cited this text only to
support his own view as to the capacity of women to inherit.8

Further the low status of women is attributed to the Manusamriti. Dr. Ambedkar traces the low
status of women to Manu's Manusamiriti which instructed the menfolk not to allow women to
have unbridled rein in any walk of life. Manu observed: A wife, a daughter and a slave have no
property. The wealth, which they earn, belongs to their owners. Thus Manu was deadly against
the welfare and giving dignified status to the women at every stage of their lives. a child they
should be under the direct control and supervision of her father. The father could give her in
marriage to anyone without her consent and authority. After being married, she should live under
the direct supervision and control of her husband. As a widow, her son could exercise his

8
P.C Jain, Heritable Rights of Hindu female: General survey, Journal of legal Studies, University of Rajasthan, Vol.
28 (1997-98), pp. 3-6.

12
authority over her. She was deprived of freedom and personal property.9 Thus most of these
samritis were restrictive in the areas of rights of females. Most of these Hindu religious text
treated woman as dependent, requiring protection and considering them incapable of exercising
independent authority. However there were exceptions to this restrictiveness within customary
laws.

2) PROPERTY RIGHTS OF WIDOW UNDER DIFFERENT SCHOOLS

After the rights of widow as given in samiritis the next came digests and commentaries. In these
commentaries modern law of Hindu Succession is embodied. But the commentators of these
commentaries gave their own views on the ancient texts and as a result the authority of these
commentaries having been received in one and rejected in other part of India. This led to the
emergence of schools with conflicting doctrines. Basically there were two important schools of
Hindu Law- Mitakshara and Dayabhaga. Mitakshara is a running commentary on the code of
Yajnavalika. It is however more a digest then a mere commentary on a particular Samiriti. It was
written in latter part of 11th century by Vijnaneswara. The Mitakshara is further sub divided into
four minor sub schools i.e. Benars school, Mithila School, Bombay School and Dravida School.
Mitakshara was accepted as supreme authority in whole of India except in Bengal where
Dayabhaga written by Jimutvahana was prevalent.

These two Schools differ from each other in various aspects but one of the principal differences
between these two main schools relates to the law of inheritance, because regarding inheritance,
Mitakshara system is based on consanguity or proximity of blood relations where as Dayabhaga
system is based upon the religious efficacy. According to the Mitakshara the nearest "sapinda" is
one who is nearest in blood relation but according to Dayabagha the nearest Sapinda is one who
offers greatest spiritual benefit by making offerings of ‘Pinda’.

But so far as females’ proprietary rights are concerned, in both of these Schools succession to the
property was vested in male heirs. Since women were viewed as dependents upon these males,
Hindu Law give them right of maintenance but not to inheritance. In Mitakshara School son had
given a birth right in the father's property. Even at that time (before Amendment 2005) the

9
S.S Azmi, Dr Ambedkar as pioneer for the upliftment of status of women in B.R Ambedkar on federalism,
Ethnicity and gender justice, edited by Nazeer H.Khan, Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi ( 2007), p. 192.

13
institution of coparcenery which is the narrower body within the joint family consists only of
male members. It comprises of one lineal male ancestor along with his three lineal male
decendents. Thus under Mitakshara School property right are given only to male members. The
Supreme Court in a case of State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram10 stated that the textual
authority of Mitakshara lays down in express terms that joint family property is held in trust for
the joint family members then living and thereafter to be born. The incidents of coparcenarship
under the Mitakshara law are:

(a) The lineal male descendants of a person up to the third generation acquire right by birth
in ancestral properties of such person.
(b) Such descendants can at any time work out for their share in the propertyby asking for
partition.
(c) But till partition each member has got ownership rights extending over the entire
property, conjointly with the rest.
(d) That as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of the properties is
common i.e. there is unity of ownership and unity of possession.
(e) That no alienation of the property is possible unless it is for legal necessity or for the
benefit of the estate, that too not without the consent of the coparceners.
(f) That the interest of a deceased coparcener lapses on his death to the survivors i.e. rule of
survivorship

Thus looking into these incidents of coparcenary, it is aptly clear that the females have no right
in the coparcenery. The male members of coparcenary were obligated to maintain women family
members and to provide dowries for unmarried daughters on their marriage. Succession to the
property of a separated male under Mitakshra law was even more complicated. If he died
intestate, succession was determined by proximity of blood relationship. Women who were
entitled to inherit when the succession opens gained only a limited estate i.e. to use the property
during their lifetime with no power of alienation. After they died, the property reverted back to
the next heir of the previous male owner (presumptive reversioners). These provisions of the
Hindu law intended to prevent the property from passing out of male line.

10
A.I.R., 1969 S.C. 1330.

14
Under the Dayabagha School, it neither accords right by birth nor by survivorship though a joint
family and joint family property is recognized. It laid down only one mode of succession and the
same rules of inheritance apply whether the family is divided or undivided and whether the
property is ancestral or self acquired. Neither son nor daughter becomes coparcener by birth nor
do they have rights in the family property during the father's lifetime. Successions were
determined by spiritual benefit theory, which held that property should be inherited by nearest
relatives who were entitled to perform rituals for the ancestors. For the performance of these
rituals, males were considered spiritually superior to females and person related through male
were considered more nearly than persons related through females i.e. agnates were preferred
over cognates. Dayabagha coparcenary comes into existence for the first time on the death of
father. After the death of the father, sons inherit their father's property and they constitute a
coparcenary.11

A) Mother:

Whenever a partition takes place among the sons, a widowed mother has a right to take a share
equal to the share of son. This right accrues to her only when partition by metes and bounds
takes place. Under the Mitakshara School the mother, including the step-mother even if she is
childless is entitled to take a share when ever partition takes place after the death of the father
among sons. Mother and step-mother each take a share equal to the share of son. Under the
Dayabhaga School a childless step-mother is excluded from taking a share on partition.

B) Grandmother:

In the Mitakshara school the paternal grandmother and step grandmother are entitled to a share
on partition in the following situations:

(1) When partition takes place between her grandsons (son's son), her son being dead, she is
entitled to a share equal to the share of a grandson.

11
(Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, 2013)
Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, S. A. (2013). Mulla Hindu Law. Lexis Nexis.

15
(2) When partition takes place between her son and sons of a predeceased son, she is entitled to a
share equal to the share of a grandson.

(3) When partition takes place between her sons and their sons, according to the Allahabad and
Bombay High Courts,12 she is not entitled to a share, but according to the Calcutta and Patna
High Courts,13 she is entitled to a share equal to the share of a grandson.

(4) In Ramdhan v. Bala14 the Nagpur High Court has evolved a fresh scheme. In this case there is
a partition suit, between an uncle and nephew. The mother of the uncle, as grand-mother and the
mother of the nephew as mother were allowed to participate in the distribution of properties.
Mother was allowed to take 1/6 and the grandmother taking 1/3 share. So far as the decision
relates to the uncle's mother, the decision is correct, because the case comes under the rule (2) set
out here. But so far as it relates to nephew's mother, it is curious since there is no partition among
her son, and the rule being that 'mother' takes a share only when there is partition 'among her
sons'. Probably the court was compelled to take this view on equitable basis, because the
nephew’s mother would otherwise get nothing. Here it is submitted that there is no authority in
support of that view, and it is obviously wrong according to the Shastra also.

C) Coparcener Widow:

Now, it seems to be settled law that after partition whenever two or more widows succeed to the
property of their husband then each widow acquires a right of survivorship alongwith this either
widow also gets the right to partition with or without the consent of the other or others. Thus
coparcener widow can put an end to joint status of the family. Even when a father's widow
succeeds along with her sons, she also acquires right to partition. Similarly if a partition takes
place among the brothers, after the death of the brother his widow is entitled to a share.15

3) WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW

Customs were regarded as an important source of law. Especially, local customs under the
samritis were held in high esteem and were recognized as an important source of law. The

12
Shoe Narayan v. Janki Prasad ILR (1912) 34 AII 505; Joti Ram v. Ram Chandra, A.I.R. 1941, Bom 382
13
Badri v. Bhagwant (1882) 8 Cal 649; Krishna Lal v. Nandeshwara A.I.R. 1918, Pat 91.
14
A.I.R., 1946 Nag 206.
15
Duddi v. Duddin, A.I.R., 1983, S.C 583 ; Munnalal v. Rajkumar, A.I.R. 1962 S.C 1493.

16
widely used terms in samritis like achara, sadachara, shishtachara, loksangraha etc. symbolize
various features of custom. These local customs varied from region to region in terms of their
acceptance. So far as the widow rights are concerned southern states in their local customs
granted much more rights to women. Incidentally, it is also believed that both Yajnavalkya and
Vijnaneshwara, who had extended their structure on women's right to property, belonged to the
southern (Dakshina) region.

III. WIDOW PROEERTY RIGHTS UNDER STATUTORY LAW

THE HINDU WOMEN'S RIGHT TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937

In order to confer more better and significant inheritance rights to the women, this Act was
passed to amend the Hindu law of succession of all schools. It made innovative changes in the
Mitakshara law. In fact, it affected the law of coparcenary, partition, alienation and succession. It
conferred upon the widow of a man, whether governed by the Mitakshara or the Dayabhaga law,
right to inheritance to the property even when he dies leaving behind a male issue. Similar rights
were conferred upon the widows of his pre-deceased son and the widow of pre-deceased son of a
pre-deceased son. After this Act, in the Mitakshara undivided family the widow of a deceased
coparcener was entitled to take his interest in the joint family. In all cases, widows were entitled
to claim partition. All the females took a limited estate. Prior to the passing of this Act the widow
in respect of the separate property left by her deceased husband had no right of inheritance. If the
deceased husband had left a son, grandson or great grandson then the widow had only right of
maintenance. She could inherit as an heir to her husband in respect of his separate property only
when he had not left any son, grandson or great grandson. Even when in the absence of these
persons she inherited as an heir, she would be divested of the same, the moment she adopted a
son to her husband. This Act conferred better rights on the above mentioned widows in the
devolution of separate property of the deceased dying intestate as well as in the joint family
property in which the deceased had an interest at the time of his death. By the Act of 1937 new
rights of inheritance have been conferred on her and she had been given the right to inherit her
deceased husband's property in the same manner as the son. In other words, the Act has made her
co-heir with the sons and entitled her to inherit in her husband's property the same share as that

17
of a son. In the case of more than one widow, the Act together gave them a share equal to that of
a son. Similar rights were conferred on the widow of a predeceased son and the widow of a
predeceased son of a predeceased son.16

According to the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856: “All rights and interests which any widow
may have in her deceased husband's property … shall upon her remarriage cease; and the next
heirs of her deceased husband, or other person entitled to the property on her death, shall there
upon succeed to the same.”

However, this Act has been repealed. Under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
widows who choose to remarry do have a right on their deceased husband's property.

The Hindu Succession Act, thought attempts to be a revolutionary one, has failed to give
property rights to widows, at the beginning. It excluded all widows of gotrajas from heirs
specified in Class II of the Schedule except the father's widow and brother's widow.

In the year 2005, the amendments made were revolutionary, one of which was removal of
Section 24 which debars the widow of predeceased son and the widow of a pre-deceased son of
the predeceased son or brother’s widow to succeed the property of the intestate if they were
remarried at the time when succession opens.17

16
(Agrawal, 2010)
17
(Diwan, 2016)

18
 IV. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

1. V. Tulasamma & Ors. V. Shesha Reddy18

In this case it was observed that Colebrooke had quoted Yajnawalkya at p. 243 of his book Vol.
thus:

"When the father makes an equal partition among his sons, his wives must have equal
shares with them, if they have received no wealth either from their lord or from his father.

If he makes an equal partition among his sons by his own choice, he must give equal
shares to such of his wives also as have no male issue."

This showed that when a partition is effected, the Hindu Law enjoins that the wife must get an
equal share with the sons, thus reinforcing the important character of the right of maintenance
which a Hindu wife or widow possesses under the Hindu Law.

2. Raghubar Singh & Ors. V. Gulab Singh & Ors.

The question answered here, is: "What are the obligations of a Hindu husbandtowards the
maintenance of his wife both during his life time and after his death?' According to the old
Shastric Hindu Law, marriage between two Hindus is a sacrament - a religious ceremony which
results in a sacred and a wholly union of man and wife by virtue of which the wife becomes a
part and parcel of the body of the husband. She is, therefore, called Ardhangani. It is on account
of this status of a Hindu wife, under the Shastric Hindu law, that a husband was held to be under
a personal obligation to maintain his wife and where he dies, possessed of properties, then
his widow was entitled, as of right, to be maintained out of those properties. The right of
a Hindu widow to be maintained out of the properties of her deceased husband is, thus, a
spiritual and moral right, which flows from the spiritual and temporal relationship
of husband and wife, though the right is available only so long as the wife continues to remain
chaste and does not remarry.

3. Nagappa Narayan Shetti v. Mukambe Venkataraman Shetti19

18
1977 AIR 1944, 1977 SCR (3) 261

19
In this case law, it had been accepted that a widow has property rights in the deceased husband’s
property and she cannot be excluded.

Also, it has been ruled in a number of cases, that a woman does not seize to be Class-I heir ti her
husband’s property upon remarriage.20

19
AIR 1951 Bom 309
20
Cherotte Suagathan v. Cherotte Barathi SC, 2008

20
 V. CONCLUSION & SUGGESSTIONS

There is the dire necessity to adopt some measures at the social level also. Law has played its
role very efficiently first by enacting the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which is regarded as
Magna Carta, so far as the women’s property rights are concerned. Then further amending it by
the Amendment Act of 2005 whereby even the gender discrimination existed under the Act of
1956 is also removed in one stroke. Thus, now it is the turn of the society to accept and
implement the present law for the overall benefit and upliftment of the females as in our society
there is difference between percept and practice.

There is a genuine need to change the heart and the mindset of the people. Openness in the
attitude of the society is also required today.

For this there is need to mobilize public opinion in this direction, so that the people should shred
off there conservative attitude and must accept the objectives due to which the new rights have
been created for the female.

For this Panchayati Raj Institutions, Non-Governmental Organizations, Women Oriented

organizations can play an effective role. These institutions can provide legal knowledge at
village level regarding the property rights available to the female. For this purpose the present
law should be interpreted in simple language and be circulated widely in the rural as well as
urban areas. Seminars should be conducted at the village level to provide knowledge to the
illiterate females regarding their property rights. These steps should inculcate the spirit of
confidence among the females.

In this direction Religious Organizations and Religious leader can also play an important Role in
molding the views of the peoples towards giving equal property rights to their Daughter.

Lastly, women herself should also come forward by accepting and implementing the law in her
own family. May be at one time because of the strong hold of traditional notions, women as a
mother does not able to get a share for herself from her father’s property but by changing her
own attitude she should create an atmosphere in her own family where by she can provide equal
property rights to her own daughter at par with the son. Thus, there is an urgent need to
revolutionize the thinking of the society and to channelize the energies especially of younger

21
generation to help them in creating the conditions which could provide an atmosphere where the
female could exercise their rights without of any sort of social pressure. Law obvious has its own
limitations while enacting these types of laws. Alongwith these legal enactments, social
awareness among common masses is the need of the day.

22
BIBLIOGRAPHY

JOURNALS:

All India Reporter

Supreme Court Cases

WEBSITES:

www.livelaw.in

www.shodhganga.in

BOOKS:

Agrawal, K. B. (2010). Family Lawn in India. Kluwer Law International.

Diwan, P. (2016). Modern Hindu Law. Allahabad Law Agency.

Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, S. A. (2013). Mulla Hindu Law. Lexis Nexis.

23