Devolution of Property under Section 8(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Devolution of Property under Section 8(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter "HSA" or "the Act") marked a watershed moment in the history of Hindu personal law, codifying and amending the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. Section 8 of the Act lays down the general rules for the devolution of property of a male Hindu dying intestate. Specifically, Section 8(a) accords primacy to Class I heirs as specified in the Schedule to the Act. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 8(a) of the HSA, examining its legislative framework, judicial interpretation, and its interplay with other provisions of the Act, drawing upon key precedents and scholarly understanding of Indian succession law.

Legislative Framework of Section 8

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provides the foundational rules for succession to the property of a male Hindu dying without a will.

Text and Scope of Section 8

Section 8 reads as follows:

"8. General rules of succession in the case of males.—The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter—
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased."

This article focuses on Section 8(a), which establishes that Class I heirs have the foremost right to inherit the property of a male Hindu dying intestate. The term "property" in Section 8 encompasses both the separate or self-acquired property of the deceased male Hindu and his undivided interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary, which, due to the proviso to Section 6, devolves by intestate succession under the Act and not by survivorship if he leaves behind female relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claims through such female relative.[1]

Overriding Effect (Section 4)

Section 4 of the HSA gives the Act an overriding effect. It stipulates that any text, rule, or interpretation of Hindu Law, or any custom or usage in force immediately before the commencement of the Act, shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in the Act.[2] Furthermore, any other law in force immediately before the commencement of the Act shall cease to apply to Hindus insofar as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act.[3] This provision underscores the Act's intent to codify and reform, making its provisions, including Section 8, paramount in matters of intestate succession.[4]

Interaction with Section 6 (Coparcenary Property)

Prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, Section 6 dealt with the devolution of interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property. The proviso to the unamended Section 6 was crucial: if a male Hindu died leaving behind a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule or a male relative specified in that class who claimed through such a female relative, his interest in the coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession under the HSA, and not by survivorship. Explanation 1 to Section 6 provided that for this purpose, the interest of the deceased coparcener would be deemed to be the share that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death.[5] This notional partition determined the quantum of the deceased's share, which then became subject to devolution under Section 8.

The Supreme Court in Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum[5] emphasized that the fiction of notional partition must be given its full effect. The share ascertained through this fiction is then distributed among the heirs as per Section 8. The 2005 amendment to Section 6, which conferred coparcenary status on daughters by birth, as clarified in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma,[1] has altered the landscape of coparcenary rights but the principle of devolution of a deceased coparcener's share (if he dies intestate) continues to be governed by Section 8 for his interest.

Judicial Interpretation of Section 8(a) and Devolution to Class I Heirs

Identification of Class I Heirs

Section 8(a) mandates that the property first devolves upon Class I heirs. The Schedule to the HSA lists these heirs, which include the son, daughter, widow, mother, son of a predeceased son, daughter of a predeceased son, widow of a predeceased son, son of a predeceased daughter, daughter of a predeceased daughter, and other specified relatives. The Gauhati High Court in Basanti Jaiswal And Anr. v. Gauri Shankar Gupta And Ors. affirmed that daughters, whether married or unmarried, are Class I heirs under Section 8(a) read with the Schedule.[6] The Gujarat High Court in Patel Shantaben Bhikhabhai Nayanaben Firozkhan Pathan @ Nasimbanu Firozkhan Pathan v. [Respondent], referencing Section 26 of HSA, noted that a daughter, being a Class I heir, is entitled to succession even if she converts to another religion, though her descendants might be disqualified if not Hindus at the time succession opens.[7]

Nature of Property Inherited by Class I Heirs

A significant jurisprudential development concerns the character of property inherited by a male Class I heir (e.g., a son) under Section 8. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen,[8] held that when a son inherits the separate or self-acquired property of his father under Section 8, he takes it in his individual capacity and not as Karta of his own joint family. Such property is not HUF property in his hands vis-à-vis his own sons. This principle was reiterated in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar[9] and Uttam v. Saubhag Singh.[10] The Court in Chander Sen reasoned that the HSA, being a codifying Act, intended to supersede the old Hindu law under which such property might have become ancestral in the hands of the son.[8] Consequently, the son's own male issue would not acquire an interest by birth in property inherited by him from his father under Section 8. This view has been consistently followed by High Courts.[11][12]

The Supreme Court in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh further clarified that on a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8, and 19 of the HSA, after the property devolves upon heirs mentioned in Class I of the Schedule, it is held by them as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. The joint family property status is effectively severed by the operation of Section 8.[10]

Prospective Application of Section 8

The Supreme Court has consistently held that Section 8 of the HSA is not retrospective in operation. It applies only where the death of the male Hindu occurs after the commencement of the Act (i.e., after June 17, 1956). In Eramma v. Veerupana, the Court stated, "It is clear from the express language of the section that it applies only to coparcenary property of the male Hindu holder who dies after the commencement of the Act. It is manifest that the language of Section 8 must be construed in the context of Section 6 of the Act."[13] This principle was reaffirmed in Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand[14] and Daya Singh (Dead) Through L.Rs And Another v. Dhan Kaur.[15] An earlier view by the Patna High Court in Lateshwar Jha And Others v. Mt. Uma Ojhain And Others, suggesting that Section 8 could be retrospective,[16] does not align with the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Succession is said to open at the time of the death of the male intestate, and if this occurred before the HSA, 1956, the old law would apply.

Rights of Daughters as Class I Heirs

Daughters are explicitly included as Class I heirs in the Schedule to the HSA. Therefore, upon the intestate death of a male Hindu after 1956, his daughters are entitled to a share in his property alongside other Class I heirs, as per Section 8(a). This right is distinct from the coparcenary rights by birth conferred upon daughters by the 2005 amendment to Section 6. Section 8(a) applies to the deceased's separate property and his determined share in coparcenary property.

Impact of Release Deeds by Predeceased Son's Heirs

In ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN AND ANR. v. M KAMALA AND ORS ETC., the Supreme Court considered a situation where heirs of a predeceased son claimed a share under Section 8. The Court examined the effect of a release deed executed by the predeceased son. While the specifics depend on the nature of the property (ancestral or separate) and the terms of the release, the case highlights that Class I heirs, including children of a predeceased son, have a statutory right to inherit under Section 8, which must be adjudicated considering any prior settlements or relinquishments.[17]

Specific Issues and Nuances

Succession to Undivided Interest in Coparcenary Property

As discussed, if a male Hindu dies intestate having an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property and leaves behind Class I female heirs or male heirs claiming through such females, his interest, determined by notional partition under Explanation 1 to Section 6 (pre-2005, and relevant for deaths before 2005, or even post-2005 for determining the share of the deceased), devolves by intestate succession under Section 8.[5] This ensures that female heirs in Class I get a share from the coparcenary interest of the deceased, which they would not have under the classical Mitakshara law of survivorship.

No Divestment of Vested Estates

The HSA does not operate to divest any estate which had already vested in an heir before the Act came into force.[15] If succession opened before June 17, 1956, and property vested in heirs according to the then-prevailing Hindu law, the HSA, including Section 8, would not retrospectively alter that devolution.

Discussion of Key Reference Materials in Relation to Section 8(a)

The jurisprudence surrounding Section 8(a) has been significantly shaped by landmark decisions. Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen[8] and Uttam v. Saubhag Singh[10] are pivotal in establishing that property inherited by a son (a Class I heir) under Section 8 is his individual property, not HUF property in his hands vis-à-vis his own sons, thus marking a clear departure from pre-1956 Hindu law. Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum[5] clarified the mechanism of notional partition under Section 6 for determining the share of a deceased coparcener that would devolve under Section 8. The prospective nature of Section 8 was firmly established in cases like Eramma v. Veerupana[13] and Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand,[14] ensuring that successions opened before the Act are not disturbed. These cases collectively illustrate the transformative impact of Section 8(a) in creating a uniform and reformed law of intestate succession for male Hindus, prioritizing Class I heirs.

Conclusion

Section 8(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, plays a crucial role in the scheme of intestate succession for male Hindus in India. It unequivocally establishes the primary right of Class I heirs to succeed to the property of the deceased. Judicial interpretations have clarified that this provision applies prospectively, and importantly, that property inherited by male Class I heirs, such as sons, takes the character of individual property rather than ancestral or joint family property in their hands vis-à-vis their own issue. This marks a significant codification and departure from traditional Hindu law principles, aiming for greater certainty and aligning succession laws with evolving societal norms, particularly concerning the rights of female heirs included in Class I. The interplay of Section 8(a) with Section 6, especially its proviso and explanations, ensures that even in the context of Mitakshara coparcenaries, the specified Class I heirs receive their due share from the deceased's interest. The continued evolution of jurisprudence, as seen in cases like Vineeta Sharma, further refines the understanding of property rights that ultimately become subject to devolution under Section 8.

References