Rights of Outgoing Partner

This article has been written by Anjani Singh pursuing a Diploma in Advanced Contract Drafting, Negotiation and Dispute Resolution course from LawSikho. 

This article has been edited by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

Generally, there are two types of properties under Hindu law. The ancestral property and separate property. Ancestral property is divided by the rules of coparcenary and the rule of partition. In contrast, separate property is divided by the rule of succession and the rule of inheritance. Succession can occur in two modes: intestate succession, which means succession without the help of a Will, and testamentary succession, which means succession with the help of a Will. In general term succession means the transfer of property from one person to another. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956, is a concise act that deals with all the rules and issues related to succession and inheritance under Hindu law. This act includes provisions for the equal distribution of property among male and female heirs.

Download Now

This article mainly focusses on disqualification from succession under the Hindu Succession Act. According to this act, some provisions deal with the qualification and disqualification of heirs to inherit the property. This disqualification helps in the proper disposition of the property without any discrimination or unlawful means. By doing so, it can be ensured that the property is given to the right heirs.

Disqualification from succession

The Hindu Succession Act talks precisely and uniformly about the conditions under which a person would be disqualified from becoming a prominent heir to the property. Sections 24-28 deal with the disqualification of heirs.

Succession when heirs are disqualified

Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, deals with the consequences of disqualification under the Act. It provides that if a person is disqualified under the Act, whether by reason of unsoundness of mind, felony, or any other cause, then for the purposes of succession, the property of the disqualified person shall be deemed to have been held by him as a full owner, and the succession thereto shall take place as if he had died before the succession opened.

This means that a disqualified person is treated as if they had died before the succession took place. As a result, they are not entitled to inherit any property under the Act, and their share of the property will be distributed among the other heirs of the deceased person.

The purpose of Section 27 is to prevent disqualified persons from benefiting from their wrongful acts or from taking advantage of their mental or physical disabilities. For example, a person who has been convicted of a felony may be disqualified from inheriting property under the Act. This is because the legislature believes that allowing such a person to inherit property would be contrary to public policy.

The disqualification under Section 27 is not absolute. A person who has been disqualified may still inherit property if they are later restored to competency or if they are pardoned by the President of India. However, in order to do so, they must file a petition with the court and prove that they are now competent to manage their property.

Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act is an important provision that helps to ensure that property is distributed fairly and equitably among the heirs of a deceased person. It also serves to protect the public from disqualified persons who may be unable to manage their property or who may pose a danger to others.

Illustration

If a person A died, leaving behind his widow and the widow of a predeceased son, who got remarried before A died, then all the property would be given to the widow of A and not to the widow of a predeceased son, as she got remarried. Now she is considered deceased and will have no right to inherit A’s property.

Disqualification by widows’ re-marriage

Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, dealt with the consequences of a widow’s remarriage on her entitlement to inherit in cases of intestate succession. The provision stated that a widow who remarried after the death of her spouse would forfeit her right to inherit any property from her deceased husband’s estate. This provision was criticised for being discriminatory and gender-biassed, as it placed an unfair burden on widows who chose to remarry.

The provision was repealed by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which recognised evolving societal norms and sought to promote gender equality. The repeal of Section 24 was a significant step towards ensuring that widows are not deprived of their inheritance rights based solely on their marital status. This amendment aimed to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which provide for equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.

By repealing Section 24, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, sought to address the historical injustices faced by widows and to provide them with the same inheritance rights as their unmarried counterparts. This amendment recognised that a woman’s right to inherit property should not be contingent on her marital status and that widows should be treated equally in matters of succession.

The repeal of Section 24 has had a positive impact on the lives of many widows in India. It has empowered them to make decisions about their lives, including the choice to remarry, without fear of losing their inheritance rights. The amendment has also contributed to promoting gender equality and social justice in India.

Prior to the Amendment Act of 2005, Section 24 disqualified three women from inheriting the intestate property if, at the time of succession, they had remarried, which were as follows:

  • Son’s widow
  • Son’s son’s widow
  • Brother’s widow

Kasturi Devi vs. Deputy Div. Commissioner (1976)

This case questions whether remarriage would bar a mother from succeeding as a son’s heir. The court held that the widowed mother and widowed stepmother are not disqualified from inheritance even if they have remarried. After the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 Section 24 was deleted, but the underlying principles remained unchanged. The widow would not be entitled to the succession of the intestate property if she had remarried before the succession took place. This is because, after remarriage, a widow is considered a member of her new husband’s family and therefore she gets the right to inherit in her new family; the right to inherit from the previous family is abolished. However, if she remarries before the death of her first husband, then the second marriage would be void and she would be considered a qualified heir.

Disqualification by murder

Section 25 disqualifies a person from becoming a qualified heir to the succession in two ways:

  • An heir murdered or abetted in the murder of the person whose succession is at stake.
  • An heir murdered or abetted in the murder of someone else in furtherance of the succession.

The heir would be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person who was murdered or any other property they have right over. They would be treated as dead at the time when succession would take place.

Here the most important phrase to emphasise is “furtherance of the succession,” which means the act of murder and abatement is done with the motive of acquiring the property of succession, then that person is disqualified. Whereas, if any act has taken place unknowingly or without any motive of the heir, then that heir would not be disqualified from succession and would be a valid heir to inherit the succeeded property.

Illustrations

  • X and Y are both heirs to the property of A. X murdered Y to become the only heir to the property. Here, X would be disqualified from becoming the valid heir to the property of succession at stake.
  • X and Y are brothers; they both made a plan to murder their father and inherit all the property of their father. Here, both X and Y would be disqualified from inheriting the property.
  • X, Y, and V are heirs to A’s property. X abetted Y for murdering A and Y murdered A. Here X and Y both be disqualified as X abetted the murder and Y did the murder. The only valid heir to inherit would be V who was not involved in any acts.

Vellikannu vs. R Singaperumal (2005)

In the intriguing case of Vellikannu vs. R. Singaperumal (2005), the Supreme Court of India grappled with a profound legal question: can the descendants of a person who committed murder inherit the property of the victim? The case presented a complex scenario where the son, driven by greed, brutally murdered his father with the sole intention of inheriting his property. However, in a just and morally sound decision, the court ruled that both the son and his descendants would be disqualified from inheriting the property.

The facts of the case are as follows: a son, consumed by a desire for wealth, plotted to eliminate his father, who owned substantial property. In a heinous act, the son took his father’s life, believing that he would then be able to claim his inheritance without any obstacles. However, the law had other plans in store for him.

The son’s wife, aware of her husband’s crime, filed a suit in court, seeking her share of her father-in-law’s property. The legal battle ensued, and the Supreme Court had the daunting task of determining whether the son’s descendants should be allowed to inherit the property despite their ancestor’s heinous act.

The court, in its wisdom, recognised the gravity of the situation and the moral implications of allowing the son and his descendants to benefit from the crime. It held that the son’s act of murder not only disqualified him from inheriting the property but also extended this disqualification to his descendants. The court reasoned that allowing the descendants to inherit would be tantamount to rewarding the son’s crime and sending the wrong message to society.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vellikannu vs. R. Singaperumal serves as a potent reminder that the law will not tolerate those who seek to profit from their own wrongdoing. The court’s ruling upholds the principles of justice, equity, and morality, ensuring that the consequences of such heinous acts are not passed down through generations.

Smt. Janak Rani Chadha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2007)

In this case, the husband was found guilty of murdering his wife. The court disqualified him under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act from inheriting his wife’s property. The court further said that the husband’s parents are also disqualified from inheriting the property as they are in close relation to the murderer.

Disqualification by conversion

Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act deals with disqualification on the basis of conversion. An heir who, by conversion to a different religion or ceased to be Hindu, would not be disqualified from inheriting the property. The conversion to any other religion would not impact the right of inheritance of that Heir.

However, the children of such an heir after such conversion and their descendants shall be disqualified. There is a condition, which is that unless such children or descendants are Hindu at the time when the succession takes place, they would not be disqualified and would be considered a valid heir to the property.

After the conversion, the person would be governed by the laws of that particular religion to which he or she had been converted and that particular religion’s personal law would be applicable while dealing with the process of inheritance.

Illustration

  • X is an heir to A’s property who, before the succession, converted to a non-Hindu religion. Here, the conversion of X would not disqualify X from being a qualified Heir to inherit the property from A.
  • A died living behind X and Y’s predeceased son YS. Y before his death converted to a different religion. So, the property of A would be inherited by X only not by YS as he is a disqualified descendent.

Balchand Jairam Lalwant vs. Nazneen Khalid Qureshi (2018)

Balchand Jairam Lalwant vs. Nazneen Khalid Qureshi (2018) was a landmark case in India that addressed the issue of whether an heir who converted to a different religion would be a valid heir to inherit property.

In this case, Nazeem Qureshi, the daughter of a Hindu father, converted to Islam after her father’s death. When her father’s property was being distributed, Nazeem claimed her right to inheritance. However, her Hindu relatives argued that under Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she was disqualified from inheriting the property because of her conversion.

The case went to court, and the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of Nazeem. The court held that, while Nazeem’s descendants would be disqualified from inheriting the property under Section 26, Nazeem herself was not disqualified. The court reasoned that Section 26 was intended to prevent the fragmentation of Hindu joint family property and that Nazeem’s conversion did not affect her status as a Hindu for the purposes of inheritance.

The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision, and the case set an important precedent for the rights of religious converts in India. The decision clarified that individuals who convert to a different religion do not automatically lose their right to inherit property. However, it is important to note that the decision only applies to cases involving the inheritance of separate property. In cases involving the inheritance of joint family property, the rules of succession may be different.

The Balchand Jairam Lalwant vs. Nazneen Khalid Qureshi case is a significant legal precedent that has helped to protect the rights of religious converts in India. The case has also helped to promote religious tolerance and understanding in the country.

Disqualification by disease, deformity, and unchastity

Section 28 of the Hindu Succession Act states that no person shall be disqualified on the basis of any disease, deformity or any other similar ground. They would be valid and qualified heirs to the property. This rule applies to both testamentary and intestate successions.

Ratti Ram vs. Smt. Basanti and Ors. (1986)

Ratti Ram vs. Smt. Basanti and Ors. (1986) is a landmark case in Indian jurisprudence that challenged traditional notions of inheritance and property rights. The court’s ruling in this case had profound implications for the rights of women and individuals with disabilities in India.

The case involved a dispute over the inheritance of ancestral property. The plaintiffs, Ratti Ram and his brothers, claimed that their sister, Smt. Basanti, was disqualified from inheriting their father’s property due to her physical disability and alleged unchastity. They argued that, according to Hindu law and custom, a daughter with a disease or deformity, or who had engaged in immoral conduct, was not entitled to inherit property.

However, the court rejected these arguments and held that disease, deformity, and unchastity are no longer grounds for disqualification from inheriting property. The court recognised that these traditional notions of inheritance were discriminatory and violated the fundamental rights of women and individuals with disabilities.

The court’s decision in Ratti Ram vs. Smt. Basanti was a significant step towards gender equality and the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities in India. It affirmed the principle that all individuals, regardless of their physical or mental abilities or moral standing, have full and equal rights of inheritance as compared to any other heirs to the property.

This landmark judgement has had a lasting impact on Indian inheritance law and has been cited as a precedent in subsequent cases involving the rights of women and persons with disabilities. It has also contributed to broader efforts to promote inclusivity and non-discrimination in Indian society.

Conclusion

The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 provides an uncomplicated way to dispose of one’s property without creating any unnecessary problems on either part of the parties to succession. The act has also undergone some amendments, which have amended the provisions as per societal development and changes. The grounds for disqualification of heirs provide a balance of moral and lawful conduct while inheriting the property. This also maintains the principle of non-discrimination on any of the grounds, whether it be gender, religion, or any other personal ground. It also strictly forbids the expansion of the provision other than the written text in the act. This also prevents giving any type of right or privilege to the person who has committed a heinous crime. Ultimately, all these provisions give a transparent way as to who will be disqualified from inheriting the property so the property is inherited by the qualified heirs without any conflict or disagreement. 

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here