The property rights of Indian women are unequal and unfair while they need come an extended way ahead within the last century. Indian women still get less rights in property in term of quality and quantity. Daughter must tend equal rights as sons. Daughter remains a loving daughter throughout the life. The main scheme of this act is:

  • Females heir aside from the window were recognized while the widow’s positions were strengthened.
  • The principle of simultaneous succession of heir of a particular class was introduced.
  • Remarriage, conversion, unchastity are not any longer held as ground for disability to inherit.
  • Even the unborn child feature this right if she/he was within the womb at the time of death of the intestate, if born subsequently.


Hindu Women Property Rights:

The property rights of the Hindu women are highly fragmented on the idea of several factors aside from those like religion therefore country side which are already mention. Property rights of Hindu are also vary counting on the status of the lady within the family and his marital status whether the lady may be daughter, unmarried or married, wife or widow or mother.

Muslim Women Property Rights:

Indian Muslims broadly belongs to 2 schools of thoughts in Islamic law: the Sunnite and therefore the Shiite. Under the Sunnite schools there are four categories: Hanafis, Shafis, Malikis and Hanbalis. The overwhelming majority of Muslim in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey are Hanafis. The standard practice during this sub-continent is to use the terms ‘Sunni’ law or ‘Shia’ law. properly speaking, this is often inexact; by the previous is supposed the Hanafis Law and by the later, the Ithna Ashari school. 

Christian Women Property Rights:

The Indian Christian widow’s rights isn’t a preoperative and gets curtailed because of the other heir steps in, where the intestate has left a widow and any lineal descendant, one third of his property devolves to this widow and therefore the remaining two thirds attended his lineal descendants. If he has left no lineal descendant but has left persons who are kindred to him, one half his property devolves to his widow and therefore the remaining half goes to those that are of kindred to him. 


  1. If property is ancestral

Under the Hindu law, property is split into two types: ancestral and self-acquired. Ancestral property is defined together that’s inherited up to four generations of male lineage and will have remained undivided throughout this era. 

  •  If property has been self-acquired by father 

In the case of a self-acquired property, where a father has bought a land or house together with his own money, a daughter has no rights on his property. The father, during this case, has the proper to gift the property or will it to anyone he wants, and a daughter won’t be ready to raise an objection. 

  • If daughter is married 

Before 2005, the Hindu Succession Act considered daughters only as members of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), not coparceners. The latter are the lineal descendants of a standard ancestor, with the primary four generations having a birth right to ancestral or self-acquired property. However, once the daughter was married, she was not considered a member of the HUF. After the 2005 amendment, the daughter has been recognized as a coparcener and her legal status makes no difference to her right over the father’s property.

  • If daughter was born or father died before 2005 

When the amendment to the Act was administered. she is going to have an equivalent right as a son to the father’s property, be it ancestral or self-acquired, regardless of her date of birth. On the opposite hand, the daddy has got to are alive on 9 September 2005 for the daughter to stake a claim over his property. If he had died before 2005, she is going to haven’t any right over the ancestral property, and self-acquired property are going to be distributed as per the father’s will. Coparcener may be a term used for an individual who assumes a right in parental property by birth only.


The supreme court of India has number of cases has held that private laws of parties aren’t vulnerable to fundamental rights under the constitution and thus they can’t be challenged on the bottom that they’re in violation of the fundamental rights especially those guaranteed under Article 14,15 and 21 of the constitution of India[3].On the opposites hand ,there are number of cases the SC has tested personal laws on the touch stones of fundamental rights and skim down the laws or interpreted them so on make them according to the fundamental rights. In these decision private laws in the challenge might not on struck down, but the very fact that choice were on merits attend show that though enactment of the consistent civil code may require legislative intervention but the discrimination aspects of private laws can definitely be challenged as being violation of the elements rights of the girls under the article 14 and 15 may be struck down[4].In fact in one case the SC has held that private laws to the extent that they are in violation of the elemental rights are void[5].In some judgement SC has recommended to the state to hold out its obligation under Article 44 of the constitution of India and formulate a consisted a civil code. There is a particular swing is towards a consistent civil code. Another heartening trend is that the Indian courts are increasingly counting on international standards, derived from various international declarations and conventions. This line of judgments provides a firm basis for the ladies of India to demand gender justice and equal rights on par with international standards.

In case PRAKASH & ORS vs. PHULAVATI & ors[6] SC stated: – “The rights of coparcener under amendment act 2005 are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9/9/2005 regardless of the birth date of daughters.” Simply it means if the daddy passes before the said date 9/9/20015, the living daughter of coparcener would haven’t any right in coparcener’s property. 


The Constitution of India enshrines the principle of gender equality in its Preamble and Parts III, IV and IVA concerning Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles respectively. Despite the equality guaranteed by the law of the land, women in India had suffered tons of inequalities.[4] Before the establishment of the Hindu Women Right to Properties Act 1937, women weren’t qualified for a share within the Joint Family Property and progression was represented by survivor ship. consistent with the rule of survivor ship, on the demise of a private from joint and undivided family, his share within the joint family property would expire to the surviving coparceners, which was comprehensive of just the male individuals from the family. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act ,2005 coparceners in joint family property and her liabilities in MIT Akshara coparcenary are just like the liabilities of “son”.

[1] https://www.womenslinkworldwide.org/


[3] Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir (AIR 1980 SC 707), Maharshi Avdhesh Vs. Union of India (1994 Supp (1) SCC 713), Ahmedabad Women Action Group & Ors. Vs. Union of India (1997 3 SCC 573), Pannalal Pitti Vs. State of A.P. (1996 2 SCC 498

[4]Anil Kumar Mhasi Vs. Union of India (1994 5 SCC 704), Madhu Kishwar Vs. State of Bihar (1996 5 SCC 125), Githa Hariharan Vs. Reserve Bank of India (1999 2 SCC 228), Daniel Latifi Vs. Union of India (2001 7 SCC 740), N. Adithyan Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. (2002 8 SCC 106), John Vallamattom Vs. Union of India (2003 6 SCC 611).

[5]Masilamani Mudaliar Vs. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil (1996 8 SCC 525)

[6] AIR 2013 SC 7217

Leave a Reply