Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Also known as Hindu Succession Act.
About the Hindu Succession Act
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, governing succession, inheritance and devolution of interests of Hindus, both male and female, came into force on 17.06.1956 (Sultan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Delhi, 2026 INSC 1107, para 4). Section 4 gives it overriding effect over any inconsistent text, rule, interpretation, custom or usage of Hindu law, but does not itself decide whether property is ancestral or coparcenary (Devaram v. Khetaram, 2026:RJ-JD:40614, paras 6.7-6.8). Property a son inherits from his father under Section 8 is held in his individual capacity, and his son acquires no right in it by birth unless an HUF or coparcenary character is specifically pleaded (paras 6.12-6.13).
Key Judgments
A Hindu widow who inherited a Delhi agricultural holding as a limited owner before the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 became its absolute owner under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Supreme Court held. As she died in 1973, the holding devolves on her own heirs under Section 53 of the 1954 Act, not on her first husband's family, because 'personal law' in Section 51(2) means the law in force at her death (paras 37-44).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the rejection of a son's suit claiming a 1/9th share by birth in agricultural land his father had inherited from the grandfather under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, holding that property so inherited is held individually unless an HUF or coparcenary character is specifically pleaded (paras 6.10-6.12). His khatedari right must also first be declared by the revenue court (paras 7.4-7.5).
The Rajasthan High Court revived a revenue suit in which a Scheduled Tribe landholder's only child, his daughter, seeks a declaration of her khatedari rights in ancestral land. The Board of Revenue had rejected her plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC solely because Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 excludes Scheduled Tribes (para 5). Following the Supreme Court in Tirth Kumar and Ram Charan, the Court quashed that order and sent the suit for trial on merits (paras 6-8).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that a husband's ex parte divorce decree from a Gujarat court bars the wife's fresh divorce petition by res judicata, but not her claims for permanent alimony under Section 25 and stridhan under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It partly allowed her appeal and remitted those claims to the Udaipur Family Court (paras 11.2, 14-15.1).
A three-Judge Bench held that a child of a void marriage, or of a voidable marriage annulled by decree, who is made legitimate by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has rights only in the property of the parents, but that this includes the parent's share in Mitakshara coparcenary property worked out on a notional partition immediately before death (para 54). The child does not become a coparcener and has no right in the property of any other person (paras 50, 54).