The status of women’s right to inherit property has always been bleak. There has been constant struggle and agitation on their part to acquire equal rights to inherit their father’s ancestral property. Initially, women were devoid of the right to be “coparcener”- an individual who has an equal share in the inheritance of an estate. The evolution of women’s property rights has been gradual. Women were not delved with coparcenary rights owing to the belief of them being part of another family.

 Hindu Successsion Amendment Ac 2015 act brought some monumental changes in the history of women’s right to inherit property. Under the act provisions of section 6 were amended whereby women were entitled to equally coparcenary rights as sons. They would be able to claim partition and possession of ancestral and self-occupied property of their father .

The aforementioned act brought some gender-neutral changes. Entitled women with coparcenary rights since birth like a son of a Hindu Joint family. Some other sections along with section 6 were amended and repealed concerning women’s right to seek partition and possession of the dwelling house or a widow’s right to inherit her husband’s property upon remarriage, section 4(2) was omitted, section 30 there was the substitution of words in order to enhance gender-neutrality. Further section 24 dealing with the inheritance of a husband’s property by a widowed woman upon her remarriage was repealed along with section 23 concerning the partition of a dwelling house.

Present Scenario

The position of women’s coparcenary right has been switched in a new judgment called “Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma” 5 articulated on the eleventh of august 2020. For this situation, it was held that the women will be qualified for coparcenary status and freedoms like sons regardless of whether they were born before or after the amendment.

The condition that fathers should be alive on the date of passing of the act that is (09.09.2015) isn’t required. The court gave the act a “retroactive” application. The verdict given by the bench in Prakash versus Phulvati case was overruled subsequently giving women equality. The court gave a choice on the two positions, first and foremost giving women equivalent coparcenary freedoms since birth and inconsequentiality of the father being alive upon the date of the amendment. All the equivocalness and disarray encompassing women’s succession rights were clarified.


Slowly but surely things have changed. The process has been gradual but women of the present time are now endowed with equal inheritance rights like sons. The gender-unequal provisions are now laws of the past. Beginning from the Mitakshara law which discriminated against women by excluding them from sharing property. Hindu Succession act of 1956 too wasn’t a gender-neutral act and failed to live up to the expectations of social legislation.

Striking changes were bought with the Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005 which accorded women with coparcener’s status. Yet there were clashing lawful choices and a demeanour of disarray yet “Vineeta Sharma Case” gave a conclusive assertion on the concerned matter. The apex court gave its last decision and how it is the onus of courts and various bodies to maintain what has been articulated.

Written by Adv Rohit Yadav

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.