The family feud between Baba Kalyani, Bharat Forge chairman, and his sister’s children has yet again opened up discussion on gender parity in succession and inheritance under the Hindu family law.
Kalyani, who is among the wealthiest businessmen in the country and finds his name on the Forbes List, recently contested a claim made by his nephew Sameer Hiremath and niece Pallavi Swadi. The duo has filed a suit demanding their share in the ancestral properties held in the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) by the Kalyanis.
Kalyani, on his part, filed an affidavit in court stating that his sister’s children have no right over family wealth and are not coparceners in the HUF by virtue of being children of his sister.
The affidavit filed by Kalyani argues the position of daughters and her children when it comes to inheritance rights in her father’s Hindu Undivided Family.
Recently, the settlement announced by the 127-year-old Godrej Group, splitting the operations into two factions, could be taken as an example of arriving at an amicable settlement when it comes to family wealth. The group was split between two branches of the founding family, with Adi Godrej (82) and his brother Nadir (73) on one side and their cousins Jamshyd Godrej (75) and Smita Godrej Crishna (74) on the other. Adi Godrej and Nadir Godrej got control of all the listed entities in the group; Jamshyd Godrej and Smita Crishna have control of the unlisted entities.
Disputable
Experts say this has always been a contentious topic.
Dr. Asha Bajpai, (former) founder Dean and Professor of Law at the School of Law at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), says that ever since its codification post-independence, Hindu personal law has been gradually maturing and evolving with changing times covering various aspects of marriage, succession, inheritance, adoption, maintenance, etc.
“The amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, which gave daughters the right to demand partition of property like their brothers, and made them equal coparceners in property owned by a HUF was a significant step towards improvement and ensuring gender justice within Hindu personal laws. In effect, it meant that even a daughter could seek partition of the ancestral property like her brothers,” says Dr. Asha.
Elaborated further, Dr. Asha says a coparcenary comprises the eldest member and three generations of a family—a son, father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Earlier, only male members of a Hindu family could be coparceners; the amendment allowed women to be coparceners and this was a welcome change.
“In August 2020, the Supreme Court clarified that daughters have equal rights in their fathers’ Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) right from birth, as sons do. This was again a step forward towards gender parity,” she says.
Persisting Issue
Dr. Asha, who has been involved in legislative reforms centering on women and children for more than two decades, says that despite constant changes, discrimination in property laws is still a problem. “Maybe, it is the outdated notion of a daughter being a paraya dhan that lurks behind this. However, when it comes to the rights of the daughter’s children in the property of the maternal HUF, they will be similar to that of her brother’s children,” she explains.
Last year, the Murugappa Group too decided to settle the differences with the family branch of the late M.V. Murugappan to maintain overall peace and harmony within the family. Differences cropped up between the family branch of the late M.V. Murugappan (including Valli Arunachalam and Vellachi Murugappan) and the rest of the family members as Ms Valli Arunachalam sought a representation on Ambadi Investments, the holding company of the ₹74,220-crore Murugappa Group, post the demise of her father.
Solicitor Nityoah Mehta of Nityoah Suneel & Associates, who’s been practising at Bombay High Court for more than 30 years and whose area of expertise are family law and Testamentary matters, is of the view that children of the daughter in a given HUF, will have the same right as that of a brother’s.
A Key Question
“The point is that where a daughter is a coparcener, then her children are to be treated as coparceners too. Depending upon the particulars of the case, what the courts have to look into is whether the brother is denying his own children any inheritance rights from the father’s property. If not, then whatever are the rights of his children, the same will be the rights of his sister’s children too,” notes Mehta.
Mehta, who has been appointed many times as arbitrator with several ex-Chief Justices in arbitration matters, adds, “What also needs to be looked into is —whether the existence of a HUF is being denied simply to deprive the daughter’s children of their inheritance rights? Nonetheless, the spirit of the law is clear that, as the son’s children are entitled to rights in ancestral property so are the daughter’s children, therefore, in a maternal grandfather’s HUF, the grandchildren from the side of the daughter will have the same rights as the children from the side of the son.”
Important Amendment
Speaking on the same issue, Pranaya Goyal, Partner, Wadia Ghandy & Co. Delhi, who specialises in succession matters among other domains, says, “After the amendment, one thing is certain that there is no distinction between a male coparcener and a female coparcener. The requirement of male lineage was no longer necessary. The whole idea here was to bring in gender parity and treat daughters and sons equally when it comes to dividing property held in a HUF.”
Goyal further explains that in matters where the existence of an HUF is not denied, then, “the daughter has to be treated as if she were a son. She inherits her father’s coparcenery property in a manner where she is free to dispose it of by way of a will, or it gets disposed of by way of intestate succession if she dies without a will. This also means that she is free to gift it to anyone or bequeath it, etc.”
“Now, in a certain case where the mother, who’s a deemed coparencer in her father’s property is still alive, then it is for the courts to see that the children of such a mother claiming division of assets of their maternal grandfather’s coparcenary property while their mother is still alive is justified or not,” he adds.
“It is indeed an interesting one. While these are all welcome changes, we still have a long way to go before we rule out any gender discrimination and patriarchal biases in Succession laws.”
Main Image by Monika Robak from Pixabay has been used for illustrative purposes only. The views are the author’s own and The NewsPorter bears no responsibility for the same.
