Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. HINDU LAW ­Position after 1956. 

After  enactment   of  Hindu  Succession  Act,   1956  the  self­acquired   property of intestate Hindu is governed by section 8 of the Act. The names   of   the   heirs   are   indicated   in   Schedule­I.   Section   6   makes   provision   regarding undivided share of coparcener dying as a member of HUF. The   text of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 is annexed herewith   at ANN EXURE­B for ready reference. It is provided that in the eventuality   of   Hindu   coparcener   dying   after   1956,   his   undivided   interest   in  coparcenary   property   shall   devolve   by   survivorship   upon   surviving   coparceners and not according to the Act. However, if the deceased had left   any female relative specified in Class­I of the Schedule or male relatives   specified in that Class claiming  through female heir, undivided share in   HC-NIC Page 14 of 58 Created On Wed Jan 10 23:15:22 IST 2018 coparcenery property of deceased, shall not devolve by survivorship but it   will be inherited according to section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 

              •    PRINCIPAL ACT 
         31        In 1950, while framing the Constitution, Articles 14, 15(2) and 

(3) and 16 of the Constitution of India, sought inter alia to restrain the  practice of discrimination against women and made equal treatment of  women   a   part   of   the   fundamental   rights   guaranteed   under   the  Constitution.   In   line   with   the   above   Constitutional   objective,   the  Parliament enacted the Hindu Succession Act,1956 i.e. the Principal Act.  This Act applies to all Hindus including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. It  lays   down   a   uniform   and   comprehensive   system   of   inheritance   and  applies to all Hindus, whether governed by the Mitakshara or Dayabhaga  School   of   Hindu   Law.   However,   Section   6   of   the   Principal   Act   as  originally enacted retained substantially the Rule of passing of property  in   a   coparcenary   by   survivorship,   although   it   did   give   rights   of  testamentary   disposition   to   Hindu   males   in   respect   of   his   properties  including his coparcenary share. The erstwhile Section 6 of the Principal  Act   ­   amended   Section   (6)  inter   alia  provided   that   the   interest   of   a  coparcener in the coparcenary property if not disposed of by Will under  Section   30   of   the   Principal   Act,   would   devolve   in   terms   of   the   pre­ HC-NIC Page 28 of 58 Created On Wed Jan 10 23:15:22 IST 2018 amended   Section   6.   The   main   part   of   the   pre­amended   Section   6  provided that the right of a male Hindu at the time of his death in the  coparcenary property will devolve by survivorship. However, the proviso  provided   that   if   the   deceased   coparcener   has   any   female   relatives  specified in Class I of the Schedule to the Act, then the property will  devolve in terms of pre­amended Section 6. The Explanation 1 provides  that there would be notional partition immediately before his death so as  to allocate the share in the coparcenary to the deceased coparcener.

51 The   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Anar   Devi   and   others   vs.  Parmeshwari Devi and others [2006 AIR SCW 5063] held as under: 

"11.   Thus   we   hold   that   according   to   Section   6   of   the   Act   when   a   coparcener dies leaving behind any female relative specified in Class I of  the Schedule to the Act or male relative  specified  in that class claiming   through   such   female   relative,   his   undivided   interest   in   the   Mitakshara   coparcenary property would not devolve upon the surviving coparcener, by   survivorship but upon his heirs by intestate succession. Explanation 1 to   Section 6 of the Act provides a mechanism under which undivided interest   of a deceased coparcener can be ascertained and, i.e., that the interest of a   Hindu   Mitakshara   coparcener   shall   be   deemed   to   be   the   share   in   the   property   that   would   have   been   allotted   to   him   if   a   partition   of   the   property   had   taken   place   immediately   before   his   death,   irrespective   of   whether   he   was   entitled   to   claim   partition   or   not.   It   means   for   the   purposes   of   finding   out   undivided   interest   of   a   deceased   co­parcener,  a  notional partition has to be assumed immediately before his death and the   same  shall   devolve  upon  his  heirs   by succession  which   would  obviously   include  the  surviving  coparcener  who,  apart  from  the  devolution  of the   undivided interest of the deceased upon him by succession, would also be   entitled to claim his undivided interest in the coparcenary property which   he could have got in notional partition. 

12. In the case on hand, notional partition of the suit properties between   Nagarmal   and   his   adopted   son   Nemi   Chand   has   to   be   assumed   immediately before the death of Nagar Mal and that being so Nagar Mal's   undivided interest in the suit property, which was half, devolved  on his   death upon his three children, i.e., the adopted son Nemi Chand and the   two daughters who are plaintiffs  in equal proportion.  Nemi  Chand,  the   adopted son, would get half of the entire property which right he acquired   on   the   date   of   adoption   and   one   third   of   the   remaining   half   which   devolved upon him by succession as stated above. This being the position,   each of the two plaintiffs was not entitled to one­third share in the suit   property,   but   one­sixth   and   the   remaining   properties   would   go   to   the   adopted son, Nemi Chand.