THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY

MR. ROHIT SHARMA

ID NO: 215028

ON FAMILY LAW II

WOMEN AS COPARCENERS

DURING THE MONSOON SEMESTER 2015

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION TO COPARCENARY..4
2. INTRODUCTION TO WOMEN COPARCENARY ....4-6
3. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND FOR DIFFERENT LAWS INVOLVING WOMEN

COPARCENARY... 6-7
4. THE HINDU LAW OF INHERITANCE ACT, 1929....7
5. THE HINDU WOMENS RIGHT TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937.7-8
6. THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 .. 8-9
7. HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005.. 9-12
8. CONCLUSION..13-14
9. BIBLOGRAPHY...15-17

A BSTRACT
"Of all the evils for which man has made himself responsible, none is so degrading, so shocking
or so brutal as his abuse of the better half of humanity; the female sex" Mahatma Gandhi1

1 THE MIND OF MAHATMA GANDHI Woman's status and role in Society ( YI, 15-9-1921, p. 292) Available at
http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap60.htm Last seen September 2 2016

2|Page
The above statement shows the harsh reality of this nation. The women constitutes an integral
part of life of every individual right from giving birth, taking care of family which would mean
enhancement of society at a household level. Nevertheless, even after this significant role gender
inequality exists in society in different forms. Besides this, there are some areas where the
conditions and rights given to them are worst. Giving effective property rights is one of those
areas as the disparity in property right to the women was a major issue until Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 came into being.

This paper deals with, the question of women coparcenary that has been one of the most
important question that has to be answered in lieu of women role in family. From last few years,
it has come into the leading position of the society as the involvement of youths and parliament
had been very progressive. This paper will give light on how Hindu Succession (Amendment)
Act, 2005 helped in reducing gender disparity in coparcenary rights. At finally yet importantly,
the conclusion of this paper deals with the evolution of rights when there was no coparcenary
rights to women to Women coparcenary extended up to women becoming Karta in 2016. The
beneficial clarification of this issue will explain how law made by government evolved and
tackled with the indispensable issue of the society.

1. INTRODUCTION TO COPARCENARY
Coparcenary means A species of estate, or tenancy, which exists where, land of inheritance
descent from the common ancestor to two or person. 2

2 The Law Dictionary, Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Law Dictionary: What is COPARCENARY? definition of COPARCENARY (Black's Law Dictionary) Available at
http://thelawdictionary.org/coparcenary/ Last seen September 1st 2016

3|Page
Coparcenary term means when the members of the Hindu Undivided family inherited property
equally.3 However, earlier this right was limited to the male members of Hindu Undivided
Family. It was considered as a small body of joint family within a joint family. The coparceners
have power to inherit the property jointly and have unity of possession. 4

There are certain conditions in Mitakshara coparcenary5 , which are 1) Four generation rule: This
means that coparcenary is limited to three generations to holder or up to four generations- holder,
his son, grandson, great grandson.6 2) Only, the male members will be admitted. 3) Acquisition
of interest by birth: This means that when a male is bon in the family, he will get this right to get
ownership in the property of Joint Family.7 4) Doctrine of Survivorship Under the old law,
when a coparcener X will die, his share of family property will be taken by the surviving partners
Y and Z and Xs son and wife will not get anything.8

2. INTRODUCTION TO WOMEN COPARCENARY

Properties under Hindu Joint family are distinguished into two broad categories that are joint
family properties, which sometimes is also known as ancestral property and self-acquired or
separate property.9 The former in most of the cases is inherited from the male line of descent. The
nature of taking property is joint or separate but later it is merged to form the joint property.

On the one hand, in the old Mitakshara Law, on birth, the male child gets a privilege to have an
interest in the family property. As stated earlier this school applies four-generation rule that is
holder, a son, grandson, and a great grandson are the ones who forms a class of coparceners.10
Many scholars labeled this law as draconian law as no female is allowed to become a member of
this coparcenary. On the other hand, the Coparcenary law does not find its existence in
3 Law teacher Co Parcenary - The System Of Copartionary Available at http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-
essays/equity-law/co-parcenary-the-system-law-essays.php Last seen September 1 2016
4 Ibid
5 Deepali Kumar, Interest of Hindu Women in Coparcenary Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Lawctopus'
Law Journal Available at
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/interestofhinduwomenincoparcenarypropertyunderhindusuccession Last seen
September 1 2016
6 Ibid; Recently the rule has been verified by Bombay High Court in Shalini Sumant Raut & Ors vs Milind Sumant
Raut & Ors 2012, CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 492 OF 2012 IN SUIT NO. 143 OF 2010
7 Supra at 5
8 Appovier alias Seetaramier vs. Rama Subba Aiyan, 1866 11 MIA 75.
9 Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures: Family Law II (3rd, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Gurgaon
2011)
10 Vijender Kumar, Coparcenary under Hindu Law : Boundaries redefined Volume 4 Number 1 Nalsar law review
page 33; Uttam vs Subagh Singh, Civil Appeal no. 2360/2016 Dt. 2nd March 2016

4|Page
Dayabhaga law as this law is governed by succession not by law of survivorship within
11
coparcenary.

In this law when the holder of the property dies daughter get the equal share along with the sons
and they both inherit property as tenants- in common.12

Before Hindu Succession Act was passed in 1956, the women were allowed to get the property
under Stridhan13 and Hindu Womens estate.14

Stridhan was considered as her power to get absolute property over which she had complete
ownership, and on her death, her heirs would be able to inherit property subject to the availability
of the property. Nevertheless, her state was of limited in nature as her powers to alienate the
property was limited. This type of property was not supposed to be inheriting by her heirs but by
next heirs of last full owner in case she died. Section 14 of the Act nullified the later
classification and allowed absolute ownership to women after acquiring every property through
legal means. However, the enactment did not consider the daughter as coparcener. Since the
provisions of the law were not allowing a daughter to get coparcenary ownership, this was
leading to discrimination against females and going against the essence of article 14 right to
equality under Indian Constitution.

However, Amendment to Hindu succession Act 1956 was introduced in August 2005, which
ended the old and draconian Mitakshara system of coparcenary and giving the women their
rights in coparcenary ancestral property. One hundred seventy fourth Law recommended this
reform.15

Before Hindu succession law, the position of women was horrible. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was
the first one to show his reluctance in accepting the things the way, which they were.16 He

11 Justice Ranganath Misra, Maynes Treatise on HINDU LAW & USAGE Bharat law House, 15th Edition Updater
2006
12 The Law Of Inheritance In Bengal Equity Law Essay." UK Essays. UKEssays.com, November 2013. Available
at http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/equity-law/the-law-of-inheritance-in-bengal-equity-law-essay.php?
cref=1 last seen September 3rd 2016
13 Ibid at 1028; GOOROODAS BANERJEE, HINDU LAW OF MARRIAGE AND STRIDHANA, (3rd ed. 1878)
14 30 Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
15 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, Report on Property Rights of Women:
Proposed Reforms Under The Hindu Law. (174th Report, 2000)
16 NIKITA SEHGAL, FOOTHOLD OF WOMEN ON THE PEDESTRIAN OF LEGACY LAWS LAW MANTRA
THINK BEYOND OTHERS

5|Page
decided to carry out reforms to remove these disparities, which existed in the society, and
therefore several laws like The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, The
Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, The Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 were
introduced. However, these laws were not protecting women rights absolutely and after 49 years
of Hindu Succession act, an amendment of 2005 changed the entire status of women inheriting
property that will be discussed in later part of this paper. One of the major contributions of
HSAA, 2005, is that even daughter can be a coparceners of Hindu Joint Family. Since they
deserve share in the joint family property, they can are not entitled to get the expenses of
maintenance and marriage. After daughters were allowed to become coparceners, they were also
allowed to act as a karta. However, this power can only be exercised in extremely exception
cases.17 Moreover, recently Bombay High court held that Women can be absolute karta in any
case.18

3. HISTORY/ BACKGROUND FOR DIFFERENT LAWS INVOLVING

WOMEN COPARCENARY

The right to property is one of the most significant right given for the freedom of a human being.
Before Hindu Succession Act was passed in 1956, there were certain shastric and laws from
customs, which used to govern Hindus. However there was no uniformity and they varied from
place to place.19 When the question of succession comes up there were different schools like
Dayabhaga in West Bengal and Tripura, Mayukha in Konkan, Gujarat, and Bombay, Nambudri
in Kerala and Mitakshara law in most parts of the India but in different forms. 20

Since there were different laws on inheritance and there was no uniformity, it was more difficult
to come up with a single law that can clarify the stance of inheritance. The different acts which
government passed and their role in making change in rule of inheritance is given below:

17 Smt. Savitra Bapu Shinde And Ors v. Rau Rama Shinde And Ors. 3 AIR Kant R (NOC 319) 18. (2006); Sushila
devi vs Income Tax officer, AIR 1958 Cal 697
18 Sujata Sharma versus Manu Gupta, + CS(OS) 2011/2006 on 25th December 2015
19 NIKITA SEHGAL, FOOTHOLD OF WOMEN ON THE PEDESTRIAN OF LEGACY LAWS LAW MANTRA
THINK BEYOND OTHERS
20 (1997) 3 SCC (Jour) 25; B. Sivaramayya, Coparcenary Rights to Daughters: Constitutional and Interpretational
Issues Available at http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/97v3a3.htm Last seen September 2 2016

6|Page
 4. THE HINDU LAW OF INHERITANCE ACT, 1929:
As stated earlier before any uniform law the law of inheritance in Hindus was governed by the
rule of survivorship. Kautilya in Arthashastra that allowed the surviving coparcenary members to
claim every and any right over the ancestral property has referred.21 This also means that when a
coparcenary member A dies then heirs or widow of A will not get anything but the property of A
will be divide among the surviving partners B and C uniformly. The act of 29 conferred several
rights, which were landmark at that time as they involve inheritance by female heirs into three
heads: sons daughter, daughters daughter, and sister.22 By conferring this right this right created
a barrier on the law of survivorship.23

5. THE HINDU WOMENS RIGHT TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937

Prior to independence Stridhan was one of the most important part of Women rights in property.
This Act gave absolute rights to stris (or the women) to get a certain portion of part, which was
acquired by female independently, or the part that was given by her parents. 24However, this right
was limited when acquired from her in- laws.25 The women were not allowed to become a part of
coparcenary in this law too. Even when his husband who was a part of coparcenary died, then
also the widow was not allowed to claim share in coparcenary.

This act also conferred a power of claiming the property of the deceased husband by his widow
subjected to certain conditions. 26 This widow can also demand partition. However, this act was
later repealed by Act of 1956.

6. THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

21 Shastri, Sham, Translation of Kauitilya's Arthashastra, 2nd ed., 1923, p.197.

22 MAYNE'S, TREATISE ON HINDU LAW & USAGE 1065 (14th ed. 1996).
23 Supra at 14
24 Ibid
25 Debi Mangal Prasad vs Mahadeo Prasad (1912) 39 IA 121
26 M. INDIRA DEVI, WOMAN'S ASSERTION OF LEGAL RIGHTS TO OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY IN
WOMEN & LAW CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 174 (L. Sarkar & B. Sivaramayya,1994)

7|Page
The Hindu Succession Act improved the status of women while inheriting the property by giving
them absolute right over all kinds of property own by them or acquired by them. The act
provided Section 14, 15, and 16 to give them right of inheritance.27 In addition, unlike the 1937
act all stances of limited ownership were done away with.

The section 6 of this act provided that if a coparcener dies without making a will than other
coparceners will get property by rule of survivorship.28 When Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was
debated before coming into being the lawmakers had the option to understand and interpret
Dayabhaga and Mitakshara law in a particular way where member under Mitakshara has a right
to get property by birth and when he dies the property is transferred to his heirs. 29This way could
have lead to more equality-orientated transfer to a nearest female heir of a coparcenary.
However, legislature decided to retain its nature as coparcenary law by conferring undivided
interest of the coparcener who died through succession to Class I of schedule (widow, mother,
daughter of a predeceased son, daughter of a predeceased).30 This kept out the females out of
coparcenary and failed to give females a birthright in the joint family property under Mitakshara
coparcenary.31

27 Keerthi S. Nair, Hindu Women and changes towards Property Rights available at
http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/hindu-women-changes-towards-property-rights/ Last seen Spetember 3rd
2016
28 Tushar Bhargava, Womens right on coparcenary property Available at
http://familyaffairs.co.in/index.php/2015/11/03/womens-right-on-coparcenary-property/ Last seen September 2nd
2016

29 Shelly Saluja and Soumya Saxena,

Changes brought in the position of women Available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/hsa_w.htm Last
seen September 2nd 2016

30 B.K.Sharma & Vijay Nagpal, CODIFICATION OF HINDU LAWS : ITS EFFECT ON JOINT FAMILY
STRUCTURE 32-33 Ban.L.J.(2003-04) 88-102; Uttam vs Saubhag Singh & Ors on 2 March, 2016 CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 2360_of 2016 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.6036 OF 2014]

31 Deepali Kumar, Interest of Hindu Women in Coparcenary Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005
ACADEMIKE Lawctopus' Law Journal + , Available at http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/interest-of-hindu-
women-in-coparcenary-property-under-hindu-succession-act-2005/ Last seen September 2nd 2016

8|Page
 7. HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005

As law commission stated In spite of the constitutional mandate for gender equality, gender
bias and discrimination continue to be prevalent in the Indian society in one form or another.
Though there are distinct signs of gradual reduction of inequalities on the basis of sex, yet these
could not be eliminated altogether.32

One of the major steps taken by government towards gradual reduction of inequality was
amending the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in 2005. The Amendment Bill of 2000 was the crucial
bill enshrined in 174th Law Commission Report33, which later became the reason to Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the most progressive law for upliftment of women in
Mitakshara Coparceners. Before this act was laid down to, provide equal status to male and
females in getting property rights in agricultural land, five states (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra) had already changed their state laws between 1986 and
1994.34

HSAA changed the entire level of females and acted as a instrument to uplift the existing
position of women. This act of 2005 majorly contributed towards giving the daughters same right
equal to that to son in coparcenary matters. In addition, it is a fact that any member of Hindu
Joint family coparcenary can ask for partition. So technically, after this amendment daughters
can ask for partition of joint property. In Assistant Commissioner of Gift Tax vs. C. Krishnan and
Ors,35 it was held that:

the difference between daughter and son of the Mitakshara Hindu Family is removed and the
daughter is conferred the coparcenary rights in the joint family property by birth in the same
manner and to the same extent as the son.

32 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, Proposal to Amend the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 as amended by Act 39 of 2005, (204th Report, 2008)
33 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA, Report on Property Rights of Women:
Proposed Reforms Under The Hindu Law. (174th Report, 2000)
34 Naresh Kr. Vats, Equal Rights of Women in Ancestral Property is an instrumental step for Economic
Independency-An Analysis Volume II Issue V : July 2014 (1)

35 Assistant Commissioner of Gift Tax v. C. Krishnan and Ors, 109 TTJ 516.

9|Page
In view of the new provisions, daughter is entitled to claim partition of the Hindu undivided
family.36

Some of the changes under The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, are:

A) CHANGE IN SECTION 6 OF HSA, 1956.

Section 6(1): It states that daughter of a coparcener shall:

a. become a coparcener by birth in the same manner as that of a son.

b. have same rights in the joint family property in the same manner at that of a son.

c. be subject to the same amount of liabilities as that of a son.

Section 6(2): It refers to daughters being entitled to all the incidents of coparcenary such as

Right to property, right to ask for partition, right to get a share in partition, community of

Ownership, unity of possession and the like. Furthermore, it gives daughters a right to make a

Will of their share of property by testamentary disposition.

Section 6(3): It states that when a Hindu dies post 2005, his/her interest in the joint family

Property shall be taken care of by this Act and not by Rules of Survivorship. It further states

That the daughter needs to be allotted the same share as is allotted to a son.

B) ANNULMENT OF SECTION 24 OF HSA:

Prior to this act, section 24 of HSA, 1956 was acting as a barrier and prohibiting the deprived
widows to get them fair part in her husbands property by means of inheritance. Earlier the
widow was allowed to inherit property only when she was not married at the time of succession
opens. HSAA, 2005 repealed this act and takes the inference from V Tulasamma v. V Seesha
Reddy37 where apex court held that

36 Ibid
37 Tulasamma v. Seshareddi, 3 SCC 99 (1977)

10 | P a g e
A widow is entitled to maintenance out of her deceased husbands estate, irrespective of
whether that estate is in the hands of his male issue or other coparceners.

Now the widow can have a right to get the property rights of her husband without making a will
even if she is married at the time succession opens.38

C) DELETION OF SECTION 4(2) OF HSA, 1956

Annulment of Section 4(2) of HSA, 1956 is also an undoubtedly a major step towards getting the
goal of equal rights to man and woman. It removed the highly misogynistic law that prohibits
daughter to inherit agricultural property. HSAA changed the nature of agricultural land from
specific rights to general rights to that of any other property.

D) OMISSION OF SECTION 23 TO PROHIBIT GENDER INEQUALITY

HSAA, 2005 also omitted Section 23 of Act which was not allowing a female heir to claim a
share in dwelling house when partition opens till the time male heirs exhaust their respective
shares.

Considering these change in Hindu Succession Act, the Supreme Court in 2009 case39 held:

Maintenance, as we see it, necessarily must encompass a provision for residence. Maintenance
is given so that the woman can live in the manner, more or less, to which she was accustomed.
The concept of maintenance must, therefore, include provision for food and clothing and the like
and take into account the basic need of a roof over the head. Provision for residence may be
made either by giving a lump sum in money, or property in lieu thereof. It may also be made by
providing, for the course of the ladys life, a residence, and money for other necessary
expenditure.

38 Richa Acharya, Can Daughters become coparceners in a joint Hindu family under law? May 29, 2014 Available
at http://blog.ipleaders.in/can-daughters-become-coparceners-in-a-joint-hindu-family-under-law/ Last seen
September 3rd 2016
39 Komalam Amma v. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai and Ors. AIR SC 636 (2009)

11 | P a g e
However, these amendments are limited to only those daughters who are married after the
commencement of the act. In addition, not all the provisions will apply in case partition needs to
be done in joint Hindu family before this act.40

8. CONCLUSION

As stated in former part of the paper, under Hindu traditional Mitakshara law, a woman was not
allowed to have coparcenary rights by herself or even by her father. She was entitled to claim just
Stridhan at the time of marriage.

Dayabhaga does not have a system of coparcenary and it works on law of survivorship.
Therefore, the main issue was of Mitakshara law. British Government in order to improve the
conditions of Hindu female introduced Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 which
recognized the coparcenary interest of a widow when her coparcener husband dies, however
even this act fails to give her the equal rights to become absolute coparcener.

Then the Hindu Succession Act was passed in 1956, which repealed the 1937 act. This act was
vague somewhere when it comes to interpretation of coparcenary laws. The reason behind this
statement that even though this act made the right of women coparcener absolute under sec. 14.
However, section 14 of the same act denied a daughter to become a coparcener.
40 B.Chandrakala vs A.Anuradha on 31 December, 2014 Cross-Objections (SR)No.3879 of 2005 and
Cross-Objections (SR)No.13681 of 2005 In C.C.C.A.No.338 OF 2004 and C.C.C.A.No.338 OF 2004;

12 | P a g e
After 49 years of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 an amendment was introduced which drastically
changed the orthodox draconian Mitakshara coparcenary law and gave:

1. The power and right to the female also to become a coparcener in her own right.

2. Equal rights to daughter when compared to son.

3. Liabilities and debts on ancestral property. The male are not the only ones to discharge
this liability now.

4. If anyone is referring to Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary, it should be inferred that

reference is made both to male and female.

This change to promote gender equality with respect to coparcenary rights took 49 years,
however more light has to be given on those issue. One of the biggest problems of this
country is ignorance of their rights. The essence of giving these rights will only be said to be
fulfilled when the female counterparts are aware of the existence of such rights. Moreover,
the judiciary should also contribute in effective implementation law to remove the gender
disparity in coparcenary laws.41

41 Helpline law, Right of Hindu Women in Undivided Property Available at http://www.helplinelaw.com/family

%ADlaw/ROHW/right%ADof%ADhindu%ADwomen%ADin%ADundivided%ADproperty.html Last seen
September 3rd 2016

13 | P a g e
 9. BIBLOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures: Family Law II (3rd, LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Gurgaon 2011)
Alldi Kuppuswami, Mayne's treatise on Hindu law and usage 14th, Edition Bharat Law
House, New Delhi 2000

GOOROODAS BANERJEE, HINDU LAW OF MARRIAGE AND STRIDHANA, (3rd ed. 1878)
Shastri, Sham, Translation of Kauitilya's Arthashastra, 2nd ed., 1923
Julia Cresswell, Dictionary of word origins Oxford University Press 1st edition 2002
Paras Diwan, Family Law Page 125 Allahabad Law Agency Sixth Edition 2001
P K Das, Handbook on Hindu Succession , Universal Law publications 3rd Edition 2011
SA Desai, Mulla Hindu Law Vol. 2 16th, Lexis Nexis, New Delhi 2005

STATUES USED

1. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

14 | P a g e
 2. HINDU SUCCESSION ( AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005

ARTICLES USED

15 | P a g e
 1. THE MIND OF MAHATMA GANDHI WOMAN'S STATUS AND ROLE IN SOCIETY

2. ADITYA KUMAR: CO PARCENARY - THE SYSTEM OF COPARTIONARY

3. DEEPALI KUMAR, INTEREST OF HINDU WOMEN IN COPARCENARY PROPERTY UNDER

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 2005 ACADEMIKE LAWCTOPUS' LAW JOURNAL +

4. VIJENDER KUMAR, COPARCENARY UNDER HINDU LAW : BOUNDARIES REDEFINED

VOLUME 4 NUMBER 1 NALSAR LAW REVIEW

5. THE LAW OF INHERITANCE IN BENGAL EQUITY LAW ESSAY." UK ESSAYS.

6. NIKITA SEHGAL, FOOTHOLD OF WOMEN ON THE PEDESTRIAN OF LEGACY

LAWS, VOLUME 2 ISSUE 5 LAW MANTRA JOURNAL

7. B. SIVARAMAYYA, COPARCENARY RIGHTS TO DAUGHTERS: CONSTITUTIONAL AND

INTERPRETATIONAL ISSUES

8. M. INDIRA DEVI, WOMAN'S ASSERTION OF LEGAL RIGHTS TO OWNERSHIP

OF PROPERTY

9. KEERTHI S. NAIR, HINDU WOMEN AND CHANGES TOWARDS PROPERTY RIGHTS

10. TUSHAR BHARGAVA, WOMENS RIGHT ON COPARCENARY PROPERTY

11. SHELLY SALUJA AND SOUMYA SAXENA, CHANGES BROUGHT IN THE POSITION OF WOMEN

12. B.K.SHARMA & VIJAY NAGPAL, CODIFICATION OF HINDU LAWS : ITS EFFECT ON
JOINT FAMILY STRUCTURE 32-33 BAN.L.J.(2003-04)

13. NARESH KR. VATS, EQUAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY IS AN

INSTRUMENTAL STEP FOR ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCY-AN ANALYSIS VOLUME II ISSUE V :
JULY 2014 (1)

14. RICHA ACHARYA, CAN DAUGHTERS BECOME COPARCENERS IN A JOINT HINDU FAMILY
UNDER LAW?

16 | P a g e
 CASES REFERRED

Appovier alias Seetaramier vs. Rama Subba Aiyan, 1866 11 MIA 75.
Sushila devi vs Income Tax officer, AIR 1958 Cal 697
Komalam Amma v. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai and Ors. AIR SC 636 (2009)
Prakash & Ors. vs. Phulwati & Ors , Civil Appeal No. 7217 of 2013
Smt. Savitra Bapu Shinde And Ors v. Rau Rama Shinde And Ors. 3 AIR Kant R (NOC
319) 18. (2006)
Sujata Sharma versus Manu Gupta, + CS(OS) 2011/2006 on 25th December 2015
Debi Mangal Prasad vs Mahadeo Prasad (1912) 39 IA 121
Assistant Commissioner of Gift Tax v. C. Krishnan and Ors, 109 TTJ 516.
B.Chandrakala vs A.Anuradha on 31 December, 2014 Cross-Objections (SR)No.3879 of
2005 and Cross-Objections (SR)No.13681 of 2005
Gumpha v. Jaibai 2 SCC 511 (1994)
G.Rama v. T.G.Seshagiri Rao (D) Lrs, -2-L.W. 385. (2009)
Tulasamma v. Seshareddi, 3 SCC 99 (1977)
Shalini Sumant Raut & Ors vs Milind Sumant Raut & Ors 2012, CHAMBER SUMMONS
NO. 492 OF 2012 IN SUIT NO. 143 OF 2010
Uttam vs Subagh Singh, Civil Appeal no. 2360/2016 Dt. 2nd March 2016

17 | P a g e