Role of Judiciary in Redefining The Rule of Survivorship

Introduction

The rule of survivorship, a cornerstone of Hindu succession law, has historically been a subject of patriarchal norms, where the property rights of women were often overlooked in favor of male heirs. This article delves into the transformative role of the judiciary in redefining this rule, thereby paving the way for gender equality in inheritance rights. Through a critical analysis of historical contexts, Supreme Court interpretations, and the consequent impact on gender equality, this article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of the rule of survivorship

Definition of Rule of Survivorship

Before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, the rule of survivorship dictated that a male Hindu’s interest in coparcenary property would pass to the surviving male coparceners upon his death. This rule, outlined in Section 6, excluded female relatives from inheriting as they were not considered coparceners. However, if the deceased had female relatives listed in Class I of the Schedule, the property would devolve through testamentary or intestate succession rather than survivorship. This system maintained the male-centric inheritance structure prevalent in Hindu joint families.

The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act abolished the rule of survivorship, fundamentally altering property inheritance in Hindu joint families. Section 6 now grants daughters equal coparcenary rights, allowing them to inherit ancestral property alongside male heirs. This amendment ensures that upon the death of a coparcener, their share in the property devolves by testamentary or intestate succession, rather than by survivorship. This change promotes gender equality in inheritance rights, marking a significant shift from the previously male-centric system.

History of rule of survivorship

The doctrine of survivorship has a profound historical foundation rooted in the patriarchal structures of ancient societies, where property rights were predominantly held by male family members. This principle was particularly evident in the Mitakshara school of Hindu jurisprudence, which governed the joint family property system in India. Under this system, property was allocated based on birthright, granting exclusive rights to sons and systematically excluding daughters.

The Mitakshara system introduced the concept of coparcenary, a distinct unit within the joint family that included only male members sharing in the family property from birth. Upon the death of a coparcener, his interest would automatically pass to the surviving coparceners, bypassing both testamentary and intestate succession. This practice effectively marginalized women from the inheritance process, reflecting the societal view of women as dependent on men.

The patriarchal foundations

The doctrine of survivorship, rooted in patriarchal foundations, historically excluded female family members from property rights, granting exclusive birthright privileges to sons while denying daughters similar rights. This gender-based discrimination was both a legal practice and a societal norm, reflecting women’s subordinate position in the social hierarchy. The Mitakshara school of Hindu law reserved property rights and inheritance for male members, known as coparceners. Women were systematically excluded from inheriting or owning property, as reflected in the Manusmriti, which depicted women as dependent on men and incapable of owning property.

Despite proposals for legal reforms, significant opposition rooted in patriarchal mindsets persisted, perpetuating gender inequalities. However, legal reforms and judicial interventions have gradually shifted towards recognizing and upholding women’s property rights, challenging these deep-rooted norms and redefining the rule of survivorship.

Legal Reforms and Challenges

The traditional doctrine of survivorship has faced numerous challenges and undergone significant transformations over time. Early legal reforms, such as the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act of 1937, marked initial steps towards acknowledging the rights of female heirs in joint family property. However, it was the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 that truly revolutionized the legal landscape by granting daughters the same coparcenary rights as sons, thereby promoting gender equality.

These legal reforms have been pivotal in shaping contemporary inheritance laws within the Hindu legal system. The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act of 1937 recognized the rights of female heirs, particularly widows, to inherit property, though it did not grant daughters the same rights as sons. The HinduSuccession Act of 1956 aimed to codify and reform intestate succession laws among Hindus but retained a patriarchal bias. The landmark Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 abolished the traditional rule of survivorship and granted daughters equal coparcenary rights, addressing gender disparity and aligning the law with principles of equality and justice.

The evolution of judicial interpretations

The rule of survivorship in Hindu succession has seen a significant evolution through various judicial interpretations over time. Initially, the Mitakshara school of Hindu law dictated that upon the death of a coparcener, his interest in the joint family property would automatically devolve by survivorship to the remaining coparceners. This principle was upheld in the landmark case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum (1981 AIR 1279), where the Supreme Court emphasized the automatic transfer of the deceased’s share to the surviving members.

A major shift occurred with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which introduced the concept of notional partition. This allowed female heirs to claim a share in the joint family property, marking a departure from the traditional rule of survivorship. The Act laid the foundation for gender equality in inheritance laws, although the full impact of this change would be realized in subsequent judicial interpretations.

In Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018 3 SCC 343), the Supreme Court reiterated that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act granted daughters the same rights as sons in coparcenary property. This judgment was crucial in abolishing the traditional rule of survivorship, ensuring that daughters have equal coparcenary rights, thereby reinforcing the principles of gender equality.

The evolution reached a significant milestone with the judgment in Vineeta Sharmav. Rakesh Sharma (2020 SCC Online SC 641). The Supreme Court affirmed that daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of the father’s death. This landmark ruling clarified that the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act is retrospective, ensuring that daughters’ rights are protected even if the father passed away before the amendment.

Other major judicial interpretations

These judicial interpretations collectively reflect the progressive shift from a patriarchal system to a more inclusive legal framework, ensuring gender equality in Hindu succession laws.

1. Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, 1978 AIR 1239, 1978 SCR (3) 761: This case clarified that a widow is entitled to a share in the joint family property as if a partition had taken place immediately before her husband's death.
2. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, 1986 AIR 1753, 1986 SCR (3) 254: The Court emphasized that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the rule of survivorship does not apply to the property inherited by a son from his father.
3. Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar, 1987 AIR 558, 1987 SCR (2) 643: The Court ruled that after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property inherited by a son from his father is not ancestral property in his hands vis-à-vis his own sons
4. Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36: This case held that the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants daughters equal rights in coparcenary property, is not retrospective.
5. Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343: The Court ruled that daughters have coparcenary rights even if the father was not alive when the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, came into force.
6. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1: This landmark judgment clarified that daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of whether the father was alive on the date of the amendment.
7. Arunachala Gounder (Dead) v. Ponnusamy, (2022) 1 SCC 1: The Court held that the self-acquired property of a Hindu male dying intestate would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship.

The Supreme Court's interpretation ensures that daughters have an equal share in the coparcenary property and that their rights are not dependent on the survival of their fathers post the amendment. This judgment is seen as a progressive step towards gender equality in the inheritance laws of Hindu succession.

Interpretation of Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has significantly interpreted the rule of survivorship, especially within the framework of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as revised by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. This amendment was a pivotal legal reform aimed at addressing gender disparities in inheritance laws. Before the amendment, only males were recognized as coparceners with the right to demand partition and a birthright in ancestral property. Daughters were excluded from the coparcenary and only received a share upon the partition of property after the last male coparcener’s death.

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others (2020) 9 SCC 1

The landmark judgment in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others (2020) 9 SCC 1 has been pivotal in this regard. Here’s a detailed analysis based on the Supreme Court's interpretation:

Background and Issues:

The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu SuccessionAct, 1956, which was amended in 2005. The amendment aimed to remove gender disparity, granting daughters the same rights as sons to a coparcenary property. However, conflicting verdicts in previous judgments led to a referral to a larger bench for a definitive interpretation¹.

Key Points of the Judgment:

- The Supreme Court clarified that the amendment is not retrospective but has a retroactive application from the date of its commencement, which is September 9, 2005.

- It was held that daughters are to be considered coparceners by virtue of the amendment, irrespective of whether they were born before or after the amendment.

- The Court overruled previous judgments that conflicted with this interpretation, establishing that the rights of daughters as coparceners stand on the same footing as that of sons.

Abrogation of the Rule of Survivorship:

The rule of survivorship, which was a traditional method of succession where property devolves upon the surviving members of a joint family, was significantly impacted by the amendment. The Court pointed out that the 2005 Amendment abrogated the rule of survivorship to the extent that it does not affect the coparcenary rights of a daughter.

Legal reasoning

The legal reasoning in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others represents a complex interplay of statutory interpretation, constitutional principles, and the application of precedents. The Supreme Court's analysis centered on the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005. This amendment aimed to rectify gender disparities by recognizing daughters as coparceners. The Court had to determine whether the amendment applied retrospectively and if daughters could claim rights irrespective of whether their father was alive at the time of the amendment.

In considering constitutional principles, particularly the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court viewed the amendment as a step towards ensuring gender equality in inheritance matters, which had previously been denied to daughters. The Supreme Court also analyzed previous conflicting judgments, such as Prakash & Others v. Phulavati & Others (2016) and Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Another v. Amar & Others (2018). The former held that the rights under the amendment applied only if the father was alive on the date of the amendment, while the latter suggested that daughters had rights irrespective of their father's survival.

Ultimately, the Court reasoned that the amendment was not purely retrospective but had a retroactive effect from its commencement. It clarified that the rights of daughters are not conditional upon the father being alive at the time of the amendment. The Court emphasized that the amendment conferred rights by birth, akin to sons, and these rights are available to daughters born both before and after the amendment.

Impact on Gender Equality

The landmark case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma significantly advanced gender equality within the framework of Hindu Succession Law. On August 11, 2020, the Supreme Court of India delivered a pivotal judgment that clarified the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

The Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma judgment has several paraphrased impacts on gender equality:

1. Equal Inheritance Rights: Daughters now have the same birth right as sons to inherit and manage ancestral property, which promotes fair treatment in family wealth distribution.
2. Empowerment of Women: The ruling empowers women by recognizing their equal status in the family’s economic resources, potentially leading to greater financial independence and security.
3. Rectification of Historical Injustice: The judgment corrects a long-standing imbalance in property rights, acknowledging that gender should not determine one’s entitlement to family property.
4. Enhanced Social Status: With equal property rights, women’s social standing within the family and community can improve, fostering a more equitable society.
5. Economic Progress: Women with property rights can make more significant contributions to the economy, either through direct management of their property or by using it as collateral for business ventures.
6. Legal Precedent: This decision sets a legal precedent for future cases, ensuring that gender equality is maintained in matters of inheritance.
7. Cultural Shift: The judgment encourages a cultural shift towards gender-neutral inheritance practices, challenging traditional norms that favoured male heirs.
8. Broader Legal Interpretation: It broadens the interpretation of the law to align with the constitutional principle of equality, influencing other laws and policies that affect gender rights.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case has been a transformative step towards achieving gender parity in inheritance laws, with implications that extend beyond the legal realm into social and economic domains.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court (SC) has significantly redefined the traditional doctrine of survivorship, historically rooted in patriarchal norms that favored male co-owners. This rule excluded women from inheritance, perpetuating gender bias. Through landmark judgments, the SC challenged this status quo, promoting fairness and justice. The concept of notional partition enabled equitable distribution without formal division. The SC recognized the rights of widows and daughters as coparceners by birth, leading to legislative reforms that abolished the survivorship doctrine. This jurisprudence not only ensures equitable inclusion but also shapes a more just and inclusive society, reaffirming the SC's commitment to equality.

In conclusion, the SC’s jurisprudence has not only redefined the rule of survivorship but also reaffirmed its commitment to equality, justice, and a more inclusive society. As we move forward, we recognize that the SC’s role transcends legal principles and it shapes the very fabric of our social conscience.