The patriarchal nature of our society has cast its dark shadow of gender bias in all aspects of society and the Hindu Law was also expressing its gender bias in various aspects like divorce, property rights etc. Until 1955, Hindu law was also randomly interpreted through oral readings of various content from the Vedas, Smritis, and Puranas which had several aspects of discrimination against women in multiple dimensions. To address this gender issue and several other issues pertaining to the Hindu law, the Hindu code bills were passed in the year 1955-56.[1]

This was a milestone in the emancipation of women in the Hindu personal law but it still left some loopholes which served as a tool for discriminating against women. In this research, the researcher would analyze the evolution of women’s rights in coparcenership in HUF right from the history of 1956 Hindu Code bills to the recent revolutionary verdict. The research would also look into the reasons for such gender bias and how judicial precedents contributed to the 2005 amendment and the judiciary’s role in the continuously evolving women’s rights in Hindu Law.

Introduction:[AP(J3]
The patriarchal nature of our society has cast its dark shadow of gender bias in all aspects of society, especially with regards to traditions and customs, especially in law. In the relevant context, Hindu Law was also expressing its gender bias in various aspects like divorce, property rights, and so on. Until 1955, Hindu Law was also arbitrarily interpreted through mere oral readings of sources such as the Vedas, Smritis, and Puranas.

These embodied several aspects of discrimination against women, and in multiple dimensions. So, as an attempt to address this gender issue and several other conflicts pertaining to the Hindu law, the Hindu Code Bills were passed in the first Loksabha (1955-56), which included the Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority Act and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act as a byproduct of the great efforts of Dr B.R.Ambedkhar and few other members of the constituent assembly.[2] This was a milestone in the emancipation of women in the Hindu personal law but it still left some loopholes, which could be utilised to continue discriminating against women.

In Mitakshara law, upon the death of a coparcener, his interest became merged with that of the surviving coparceners but did not permit the daughters of the deceased to get any coparcenary rights[AP(J4] . When the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was enacted, this position was largely preserved by Section 6.[3] In 2005, the Union Government realised the discriminative nature of this issue and proposed to amend Section 6 of the has. This was considered a revolution in the battle for women’s rights under Hindu Law. On August 11 2020, a Supreme Court verdict on the case Vineeti Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma [SSA(J5] held that the 2005 Amendment shall have retrospective effect and that daughters in all Hindu Undivided Families would get coparcenary right by the mere existence of survivorship, regardless of whether her father was alive when the 2005 amendment came into force.[4] This verdict further strengthened women’s rights and advocated that gender equality is far more important than following any colonial customs. In this research, the researcher analyzed the evolution of women as coparceners in the HUF right from the history of the 1956 Hindu Code Bills to the more recent revolutionary verdict. The research would also look [SSA(J6] into the causes for such gender bias and how judicial precedents contributed to the emergence of the 2005 Amendment, along with highlighting the role of the judiciary in the evolution of women’s rights.

The Hindu Code Bills:
Before looking into the formation of the Hindu Code Bills, the researcher analysed the demand for a new Bill in a religion that was already governed by multiple customary practices. The traditional texts of Hindus can be classified into Smritis and Srutis. The Manusmriti was established around the 5th century of the Gregorian calendar. Right from the time of its origin, it has been a vital scripture that has had colossal influence in determining the structure and functioning of Indian societies.

For almost every Hindu, this text was considered as an ultimate guide to a morally righteous life for centuries. The nature of this script is so intricate that it covers almost all the aspects of the life of all strata of people in society. The saddening fact is that this scripture has been solely responsible for the ‘undeserving’ position accorded to women since the post-Vedic period. Vilification of women in this text is a primary issue as it suggests treating women as merely dependent creatures throughout their life.

First, by the father or brother and then by the husband or son.[5] For centuries, Hindu law was biasedly interpreted through the Smritis, Vedas, and Puranas among which Manusmriti played a major role. But all of them were based on the underlying pretext of misogyny and gender hierarchy. They were also embedded with deep casteism, which had been vehemently opposed by Dr Ambedhkar. A pro-Dalit protest led by Ambedkar in December of 1927, in Mahan, a coastal region of Mumbai, witnessed him publicly burning a copy of the Manusmriti, symbolizing his disappointment towards the inequality in society.[6]

Besides this, there were various legal interventions carried out by different enactments in the colonial era, such as the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, the Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities), 1928, Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, among others. The 1937 Bill introduced by Akhil Chandra Datt, was not favoured by the public and was also referred by a non-official member, to be sent to a select committee. But the move was later negated.

In 1941, a separate committee is known as the Rao Committee, or the Hindu Law Committee was formed and headed by B.N.Rao and comprised of Dwarka Nath Mitter, J.R. Gharpure and Rajratna Vasudeo Vinayak Jos. Their function was primarily to review the proposed Bills.

The main goal of the committee was to resolve the doubts regarding the Hindu Women’s Property Rights Act[SSA(J7] , 1937. It monitored a daughter’s property rights as prescribed under the Act. After such review, the committee concluded that these Acts must be disregarded as they only add ambiguity to the already prevailing conflicts. Therefore, the committee decided to come up with new Bills and subsequently, two Hindu Bills were introduced on May 30, 1942, following which, more Bills were introduced.

All these Bills together were called the Hindu Code bills and they addressed Intestate and Testamentary Succession and matters arising therefrom, including maintenance; Marriage and Divorce; Minority and Guardianship and Adoption. While the bill was pending in the House for quite a long time because of varied public opinions and the absence of parliamentary scrutiny, Dr Ambedkhar set up a small committee, made some logical corrections in the Bill and introduced it to the Select Committee in 1948. (You need to cite your sources in this paragraph)

After the Select Committee released its report, Ambedkar moved the House for the consideration of the Bill. But Naziruddin Ahmed raised a ‘point of order’ on grounds that the procedure utilised by the select committee in considering a revised draft, was irregular and would hence, remain stood over.[7] After multiples issues were gradually resolved, the Hindu Code bills were finally enacted in their diluted version and four separate Acts.

These were the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. This was a great achievement in the legal fraternity since it surpassed several barriers, including the oppositions by the Hindu community, the general masses, the Sangh Parivar and the 1949 All-India Anti-Hindu Code Bill Committee.[8]

Although the Hindu Code bills resolved most of the issues in the Smritis and other custom Codes, it still left multiple aspects unaddressed. These were still imposing a detrimental effect on society and its functioning. One such area was the concept of coparcenary rights. This is a concept where a small unit in the family has joint ownership of a property. In Mitakshara law, only 4 lineal male descendants including the propositus had the coparcenary rights, so women were not able to claim it.

This denied a daughter’s right to be a coparcenary or rightful owner over a party by survivorship, that her male relatives enjoyed. The main problem here is that Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 failed to modify this law while codifying it, and it remained the same as in Mitakshara customary practice.

Nevertheless, a proviso was added to uphold the interest of female children, stating that if the deceased left behind a Class I female relative such as daughter, widow or mother, his interest would go to them by testamentary or intestate succession, but still not by survivorship. Also in the case of Mamta Dinesh Wakil v. Bhansi S Wadhwa, [SSA(J8] the Bombay High Court held that Sections 8 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act are unconstitutional and gender-biased in nature.[9][10]

Section 8 was unconstitutional and patriarchial on the grounds that cognates could receive property only in the absence of agnates. It was clear that this codified law, with respect to Hindu Undivided Families, did not effectively address the colonial and conventionally formed discrimination against women. Thus, a need for further amendment in these provisions arose, to make it more liberal and uphold the essence of the Constitution, especially for a daughter’s coparcenary rights.

State government's contributions:
Several State Governments across India realized the inherent problem with the statute and attempted to amend Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Since the subject of succession is under the concurrent list of the Constitution, it is the responsibility of both, the State and Centre, to bring about reforms in the existing legislation to uproot any sort of discrimination in any form.[11]

However, daughter's rights were subject of reform in many South Indian states, way before the UPA government proposed the amendment in 2005. Five South Indian states including Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharastra and Karnataka took the effort to make changes in the HSA and provide coparcenary rights to the daughters in their region, during the years 1975, 1986, 1989 and 1994 respectively.[12]

Kerala was the first state to make a revolution in this regard. Unlike other states, the Kerala government took an extra step to abolish the entire concept of the Hindu Joint Family system entirely. All the other four states made amendments adding provisos with similar language.[13]

The 174th Law Commission Report of India [SSA(J9] on Property Rights of Women: Proposed Reforms under the Hindu Law issued the year 2000, compiled all these state amendments with respect to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.[14] which deals with the coparcenary rights[SSA(J10] . The state of Kerala enacted The Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act in 1975, which was not an amendment to the HSA, but an entirely independent statute by itself that came into force on December 1, 1976.

The Act abolished the system of Hindu Joint Family or the undivided family, which was governed by the Mitakshara Law. it prescribed that from the date of its commencement, mere birth in a family would not give a person the rights to the family property. The Act specified that every member of the HUF holding coparcenary rights will have his share in the property as if the property is partitioned, and they would share it as tenants-in-common, replacing the joint tenancy system.

This Act does not take away the right to maintenance, marriage, and funeral expenses of any member of the family. It also abrogated the pious obligation of a Hindu son and imposes liability over the members of the family for the debts contracted by the Karta.

Andhra Pradesh amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in the year 1985. The state’s government realised that the exclusion of a daughter from the coparcenary ownership is contrary to the essence and spirit of the Constitution of India which upholds equality as a fundamental right. They are also of the strong belief that such exclusion has led to a pernicious anti-social element in the society, which is the dowry system.

Their amended statute was known as the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act of 1986. It came into force on 5th September 1985 and added a new Chapter 2A to the Union Government’s Act of 1956. The Chapter is called, ‘Succession by Survivorship Equal Rights to Daughter in Coparcenary Property’. The amendment advocated that in a Joint Hindu family, governed by Mitakshara Law, a daughter can become a coparcener by birth and have equivalent rights that a son has. This includes her right to claim ownership just by survivorship, subject to similar liabilities and disabilities as a son.

When a coparcenary property is being partitioned, the share allotted to a daughter would be exactly equal to the share of a son. It would be allotted to a predeceased son or predeceased daughter if they had been alive at the time of partition, and shall go to the living child of that predeceased son or daughter. The amendment act also prescribed, through a non-obstante clause, that nothing in the Act would apply to daughters who got married or went on a partition that had taken place before the Hindu Succession(Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act. [SSA(J11]

When a Hindu female dies after the commencement of this Amendment with an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, her interest in the property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with the centre’s Act of 1956. The amendment Act also holds that if the coparcener has any interest over the immovable property of an intestate or any business carried over by the intestate, the interest in such immovable property shall devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary and not in accordance with the centre’s Act of 1956. If any such heir proposes to transfer the interest in the property or business, the other heirs have the preferential right to acquire the interest transferred. (please cite the relevant sections in this paragraph)

The Maharastra Amendment was also framed in a similar nature as the Andhra Pradesh Amendment. By the Hindu Succession (Maharastra Amendment) Act, 1994, the Maharastra state government inserted a new Chapter II-A titled "Succession by Survivorship", which amends daughters’ coparcenary rights similar to Andhra Pradesh. On the same lines, the State of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, using the same language as the previous state amendments by Maharastra and Andhra by the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1994 and Hindu Succession(Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989.

Although the Union Government remained silent for very long on this issue, the efforts are taken by the state governments to amend these gender-biased provisions indubitably reflect the state’s forward mindedness and their intent to create a gender-equal society where there is no tolerance for discrimination.

The Judiciary’ Role:
The judiciary’s role is pivotal in every aspect of social justice and concerning women’s property rights in Hindu law, the court, in various circumstances, has discussed multiple facets that have a strong impact on the public.[SSA(J12] Time and again, the judiciary has heavily contributed to women’s rights by its rulings.

In the case of Tulsamma v. Susha Reddy [SSA(J13] , the Supreme Court held that the shackles placed on Hindu women's property rights by the ancient customs (Smritis and Puranas) has been shattered by the 1956 Act and this enactment has brought women’s property rights in par with men.[15] In this case, the wife of the deceased husband was the Appellant and the Respondent was the brother of the deceased.

The suit revolved around the widow who only had limited interest in the property inherited to her by the deceased husband’s brother. The women were entitled to receive maintenance as she leased out her property, but the Respondent contended that she did not have absolute right over the property and it was just a limited interest. The Supreme Court went beyond the legislative language of the statute, to ensure that justice would never be denied to women.

The Court also held that any property possessed by a female Hindu whether before or after the Act came into force shall be subjected to her full ownership. The court has made immense efforts to ensure gender justice in this case.

However, the court’s ruling that the shackles on Hindu women’s property rights have been eliminated by the 1956 Act, cannot be fully accepted because the 1956 Act still had traces of underlying discrimination. Most importantly, Section 6 of the Act which retained the Mitakshara principle of excluding the daughters from their coparcenary ownership, highly gendered discriminative. The court’s ignorance in addressing these defects in the Act indicates their lack of a totalitaran approach towards the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

In the case of Savita Samvedi v/s Union of India, [SSA(J14] the Second Appellant was a father and the second appellant [SSA(J15] was his married daughter.[16] The second appellant was allotted a railway quarter as he was an employee of the Indian Railways and he was permitted to retain it for 8 months after his date of retirement. Much before his retirement, the father requested the railways' department that his daughter (first appellant) be permitted in the accommodation allotted to him because she was also a railways employee.

He also claimed that both of his sons worked elsewhere and his married daughter was the only person in the capacity to take care of him and his ailing wife. Based on this, the request was granted.

However, there was a caveat, that she would not be entitled to the regularization of the railway quarter after her father’s retirement.

Even then, two days before her father’s retirement, she claimed for regularisation of the railway quarter since her brothers were not in a position to look after her parents. But the plea was rejected because married daughters were not eligible for regularization of their father’s accommodation. Owing to this, both the appellants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and their request was dismissed there as well.

Finally, they appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which reviewed a letter from the Ministry of Railways regarding this matter. The circular stated that a married daughter can regularize her father’s railway quarter only if he has no sons or if the sons are unable to look after him. To add to this, the Central Administrative Tribunal was also of the view that a daughter can regularize the property if she is a railway employee.

The court, after analyzing this circular, held that they do not intend to decide as per the circular. If she had been a son, she would have been able to regularize the quarter, and this approach would seem more gender discriminative. Therefore, the court decided that the circular represented a common saying, "A son is a son until he gets a wife. A daughter is a daughter throughout her life. [SSA(J16]

On account of this, the court deemed the circular to be wholly unfair, gender discriminative and completely against the core principles of the Indian Constitution. The constitutional validity of the circular fails under Article 14. It was also submitted before the court that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in the case of Ambika R. Nair and another vs. Union of India[SSA(J17] and others held that the railway circular of similar nature as in this case was unconstitutional per se as it possessed values of gender discrimination and discrimination inter se among women on account of marriage[SSA(J18] .[17]

In the end, the Court held in favour of the first appellant and permitted the regularization of the railway quarter for his married daughter. However, the ratio given by the Court was that she was a railway employee and her father favoured her regularization. It ignored the key aspect of gender discrimination in Hindu women and that of a married daughter, still leaving behind an unfilled hole for discrimination and bigotry against women in the Indian legal system.

Nevertheless, the judiciary has taken the effort to go out of their legal issue foreseeing the impending threats due to this gender bias and have registered it’s strong opinions as to the emancipation of women which will be in the future days remembered and upheld as judicial precedents.[SSA(J19]

Post-2005 Amendment scenario:
Due to several instances wherein the judiciary deliberately pointed out that these laws were gender discriminative in nature and also because of the states’ effort to amend this discriminative law, the Union government in 2005 amended section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which previously allowed only males to be coparceners. [SSA(J20] The Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 changed this principle and ensured that daughters of a coparcener could also become coparceners in their own right, on par with a son.

This amendment placed women on the same footing as a man with relation to the inheritance of property thereby uprooting gender bias from the law in a specific sense.[18] One could never undermine the impact that the 2005 amendment has made on society and the good it has done for Hindu women.

One empirical research shows that the five southern states which amended the HSA before the 2005 amendment, had found that it positively impacted women’s education, labour force participation, and female education. The 2005 amendment has also led to greater access to women-owned physical and human capital assets and has enhanced the probability of daughters inheriting land.[19]

One cannot deny that the 2005 amendment confronted rigid patriarchal and cultural norms, thus bringing a revolution in the Hindu women’s property rights, especially for daughters. However, the change was not a permanent one, and it still left leeway for confusions. The main and most significant among them was, whether the amendment was prospective, retrospective or retroactive in nature.

This question was a vital one as it would impair the rights that had already been vested for some, or maybe applied only to those who were about to claim their right after the 2005 amendment. Therefore, strict clarity was required on its applicability. But this[SSA(J21] clarified that the 2005 amendment was essentially not just targetted to Section 6 of the HSA, but it is based on the birth of the daughter which is an antecedent event.

However, in the case of Prakash v. Phulavati, [SSA(J22] a division bench of the Supreme Court held that there are two conditions under which the 2005 amendment can be applied. Firstly, that a daughter cannot reopen a partition that took place before December 20, 2004. Second, that the amended section would apply to the daughter only if her father was alive on the date when the amendment came into force, which is September 9, 2005.

If the father, who was a coparcener, was not alive on such date, Section 6 would apply as it existed before the 2005 Amendment.[20] A slightly contrary view was taken by the same court in the year 2018 in the case of Danamma Suman Surpur & Another v. Amar & Others.[21] The 2005 amendment was applied to the case even though her father died in 2001, hence overruling the court’s decision in Prakash v. Phulavati. It stated that the birth of a woman itself gives her a coparcenary right, irrespective of when she was born.

Furthermore, in the case of Mangammal v. T.B. Raju[SSA(J23] , the court scrutinized the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989.[22] The ruling contradicted Danammal’s case and held that there is no specification concerning the retrospective effect of the 2005 amendment that the Prakash vs Phulavati advocated for.[23] (but then what was the decision finally? This para seems a little abrupt and incomplete).

Finally in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma [SSA(J24] decided on August 11, 2020, the Court put an end to all the clutter revolving around Section 6, HSA.[24] It ruled that since the daughter acquired her coparcenary right by birth, the father need not be alive on September 9, 2005. The court, in this case, overruled Prakash v. Phulavati and Danamma Suman Surpur & Another v Amar & Other.

An unpraised fact is that the same ruling was previously held in Mangammal v. T.B. Raju [SSA(J25] case but it was not famously known to the public. However, a large bench ruling the same in Vineeta Sharma’s case and upholding the Mangammal ruling is reassuring that the 2005 amendment applies to any Hindu Daughter alive thereby ensuring gender justice.

Conclusion:
In a country where patriarchal values are deeply entrenched in every individual's mind, it is rather obvious to witness laws that cater to the interests of men, who supposedly take up a dominant role in every sphere of life.[25] This proves that laws and regulations must change with time to reform society and emancipate women. When one speaks of reform, it is law reform that is vital in gender justice and the empowerment of women. In such a sense, as this research evolves, the journey of law reforms started from the Hindu Code bills of the 1950s, and then moved to the state amendments made by 5 states in the late 20th century, and ended with the ‘modernised’ 2005 amendment.

This issue had several discrepancies upon which the 2005 amendment was still not clear. That led to the difference in the court’s opinions in the cases of Prakash vs Phulavati, Danamma Suman Surpur & Another v Amar & Others, Mangammal v. T.B. Raju and finally the recent Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma.

The inference is that one verdict came and the next one was contrary to the former and then came another verdict similar to the first one and finally the 2020 judgement overruling every previous ruling regarding the issue and stabilized the platform so that no incertitude transpires on the same matter again. [SSA(J26]

This scenario reminds the researcher of the immortal words of Roscoe Pound that the law must be stable and yet it cannot standstill. Hence all thinking about the law has struggled to reconcile the conflicting demands of the need of stability and the need of change. [SSA(J27] The direct interpretation of this legal scholar’s words would suggest that any stereotype or social evil that exists in the society cannot be completely uprooted by one single amendment or law reform. It slowly occurs through several events that collectively contribute to a whole new change. [SSA(J28]

In the researcher’s opinion, this 2020 judgement still cannot be considered as a fair attempt towards gender equality in a totalitarian view. There are a lot more issues that will arise which the lawmakers, leaders, legal luminaries, the judiciary, and the entire legal mechanism must carefully consider.

Only a society that actively strives for progressive change will be able to create a gender-equal environment, irrespective of the kind of matters addressed. Thus, the researcher concludes by appealing to the readers of this research work to constantly contribute to social progress and the legal industry must always remember that all these can be only achieved by a dynamic law that constantly evolves to meet the requirements of the changing society.

It is a journey, not a destination. – Ralph Waldo Emerson

List of Cases cited:

• Tulsamma v. Sesha Reddy, (1977) 3 SCC 99
• Samvedi vs Union of India, 1996 SCC (2) 380
• Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 1 SCC 549,
• Danamma Suman Surpur & Another v Amar & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 343.
• Mangammal v. T.B. Raju, (2018) SCC 422,
• Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma, Civil Appeal 32601/2018
• Ambika R. Nair and another vs. Union of India
• Mamta Dinesh Wakil v. Bhansi S Wadhwa, [LNIND 2012 BOM. 748]

End-Notes:

1. Rajak K, 'The Hindu Code Bill — Babasaheb Ambedkar And His Contribution To Women’S Rights In India' (Medium, 2020) accessed 28 September 2020
2. Komal Rajak, The Hindu Code Bill — Babasaheb Ambedkar and his Contribution to Women’s Rights in India, The Medium (2020).
3. K. Venkataraman, What Is Coparcenary Property In Hindu Law?', The Hindu (2020).
4. Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma, Civil Appeal 32601/2018
5. Sreyashi Ghosh, Manusmriti: The Ultimate Guide To Becoming A 'Good Woman' Feminism In India (2020), https://feminisminindia.com/2018/01/11/manusmriti-ultimate-guide-good-woman/ (last visited Nov 5, 2020).
6. Why did Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar publicly burn the Manu Smruti on Dec. 25, 1927? | SabrangIndia, SabrangIndia (2020), https://sabrangindia.in/article/why-did-dr-babasaheb-ambedkar-publicly-burn-manu-smruti-dec-25-1927 (last visited Nov 5, 2020
7. G.R Rajagopal, The Story of Hindu Code Bills, Vol. 17 The Journal of Indian Law Institute p. 537-558 (2020).
8. LS Herdenia, When RSS likened Hindu Code Bill to "An Atom Bomb on Hindu Society", Sabrang India (2020).
9. Meera Manoj, The Sexist Intestacy Laws Governing Hindu Women In India: Grounds for a successful constitutional challenge? Oxford Human Rights Hub (2020), https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-sexist-intestacy-laws-governing-hindu-women-in-india-grounds-for-a-successful-constitutional-challenge/ (last visited Nov 5, 2020).
10. Mamta Dinesh Wakil v. Bhansi S Wadhwa, [LNIND 2012 BOM. 748]
11. Saumya Uma, Interview | ‘The Project of Reforming the Hindu Succession Act Is Far From Over’: Dr Saumya Uma, The Wire (2020).
12. Right by birth: On daughters and Hindu succession act, The Hindu (2020), https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/right-by-birth-the-hindu-editorial-on-daughters-and-hindu-succession-act/article32347299.ece (last visited Nov 5, 2020
13. Nilima Bhadbhade, State Amendments to Hindu Succession Act and Conflict of Laws : Need For Law Reform, Supreme Court Cases (2020).
14. Law Commission, Proposal to Amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Act 39 of 2005(Law Com No 204, 2008)
15. Tulsamma v. Sesha Reddy, (1977) 3 SCC 99
16. Samvedi vs Union of India, 1996 SCC (2) 380
17. M Punchhi, Ms. Savita Samvedi And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 30 January, 1996 Indiankanoon.org (2020), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/877342/ (last visited Nov 5, 2020).
18. Dr Gubbi. S. Subba Rao & Mrs Eugenia Preethi, An Analysis Of The Decision Of The Supreme Court On Equal Coparcenary Rights Of A Daughter, Lawyered (2020).
19. V. Venkatesan, Interview | ‘The Project of Reforming the Hindu Succession Act Is Far From Over’: Dr Saumya Uma The Wire (2020), https://thewire.in/law/hindu-succession-act-women-supreme-court (last visited Nov 5, 2020
20. Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 1 SCC 549,
21. Danamma Suman Surpur & Another v Amar & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 343.
22. Feba Nisha, Want to stay updated and ahead of the curve? Tune in to Apprentice Insights Theapprentice.in (2020), https://theapprentice.in/blog/litigation/80/retrospective-effect-of-hindu-women%E2%80%99s-right-as-a-coparcener (last visited Nov 5, 2020).
23. Mangammal v. T.B. Raju, (2018) SCC 422
24. Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma, Civil Appeal 32601/2018
25. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Coparcenary Rights of Daughters: Solving the Obvious Jigsaw, The Leaflet (2020).

Written By: Edgar. K, Tamil Nadu National Law University[AP(J1] [EK2]