Property rights for women in India have historically been shaped by patriarchal traditions and religious personal laws, with Hindu law being particularly influential given the majority population it governs. Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, the concept of coparcenary was central to property rights. A coparcenary is a narrower body within the Hindu joint family, consisting of a father and his male lineal descendants up to three generations. Only male members were recognized as coparceners, which meant that daughters were excluded from birthrights in ancestral property. This exclusion reflected deep gender inequality, as women could not inherit equally, but only had limited rights such as maintenance, residence, or marriage expenses.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was enacted to codify and modernize Hindu succession law, but it still preserved gender disparity within the Mitakshara coparcenary system. While women gained rights to inherit as heirs in their own capacity, daughters were not considered coparceners by birth and thus could not demand partition of joint family property. Sons continued to enjoy superior rights in ancestral property. This inequality became a focal point for reform in subsequent decades, as demands grew for women to be recognized as equal coparceners.
State-level amendments were the first to address this inequality. States like Andhra Pradesh (1986), Tamil Nadu (1989), Maharashtra (1994), and Karnataka (1994) amended the Hindu Succession Act to grant daughters equal coparcenary rights. These amendments provided the groundwork for a nationwide reform through the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The 2005 amendment marked a watershed moment in Indian property law, as it declared that daughters of a coparcener shall by birth become coparceners in the same manner as sons, with the same rights and liabilities. This meant that daughters, whether married or unmarried, had equal rights in ancestral property and could demand partition, alienate their share, and dispose of it by will, just like sons.
The amendment, however, gave rise to questions regarding its retrospective or prospective application. The Supreme Court initially delivered conflicting judgments on whether daughters born before 2005 could claim coparcenary rights. This confusion was finally settled in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), where a three-judge bench held that the 2005 amendment conferred coparcenary rights on daughters by birth, irrespective of whether the father was alive at the time of the amendment. The Court clarified that daughters are equal coparceners from birth, just like sons, and that their rights are not dependent on the survival of their father. This judgment firmly entrenched gender equality in Hindu coparcenary law.
The recognition of daughters as coparceners represents a significant step toward gender justice. It not only secures economic independence for women but also upholds constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 15. It reflects a shift from social morality rooted in patriarchy to constitutional morality rooted in equality and dignity. At the same time, the enforcement of these rights continues to face social resistance, as many families still hesitate to give daughters their rightful share in ancestral property. Litigation and social stigma often discourage women from asserting their rights, and awareness about the law remains limited in rural areas.
In conclusion, the evolution of women’s right to property under Hindu coparcenary law reflects a gradual but decisive move towards equality. From being excluded entirely under the Mitakshara system to being recognized as equal coparceners through the 2005 amendment and the Vineeta Sharma judgment, daughters have finally secured their rightful place in the joint family property. While the law now stands firmly on the side of equality, the challenge lies in its implementation, requiring greater social acceptance, legal awareness, and proactive enforcement. Only when these rights are realized in practice can the constitutional promise of gender justice be fully achieved.
