-Helina Desai & Nazaqat Lal
Understanding a Mitakshara joint Hindu family and a Hindu coparcenary
Traditionally, a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law comprised only of male members who were lineal descendants from a common male ancestor, together with their mothers, wives or widows, unmarried daughters.[1] A Hindu coparcenary is a body narrower than a Hindu undivided family (HUF). A Hindu coparcenary comprises of a propositus and three consecutive generations of lineal descendants.[2] The eldest male coparcener was the ‘Karta’, who managed the joint property and the businesses conducted by the joint Hindu family.
The essential characteristics of a Hindu coparcenary were enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, amongst other judgments, in the case of CED v. Alladi Kuppuswamy.[3]
“8. … a Hindu coparcenary has six essential characteristics, namely, (1) that the lineal male descendants up to the third generation acquire an independent right of ownership by birth and not as representing their ancestors; (2) that the members of the coparcenary have the right to work out their rights by demanding partition; (3) that until partition, each member has got ownership extending over the entire property conjointly with the rest and so long as no partition takes place, it is difficult for any coparcener to predicate the share which he might receive; (4) that as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of the property is common; (5) that there can be no alienation of the property without the concurrence of the other coparceners unless it be for legal necessity; and (6) that the interest of a deceased member lapses on his death and merges in the coparcenary property.”
In other words, coparceners are those who are born or are adopted into the family. Other persons, who are married into the family are ‘members’ of an HUF. Coparceners had the right to demand partition of the joint property, while members have a claim of maintenance from the joint property or other income of the Hindu undivided family.
Daughters’ Rights in HUF Property
Prior to 2005, Mitakshara coparcenary included only sons, grandsons and great grandsons who were holders of joint property.
Post the amendment in 2005[4], daughters of coparceners also became coparceners by birth (or adoption) in the same manner as sons and acquired the same rights and liabilities as they would have had if they had been sons. Daughters, including married daughters born prior to 2005 are coparceners. Daughters living in 2005, whose fathers were not alive on 9th September, 2005 are also coparceners.
If, however, joint property was partitioned or a share in such property was disposed of by a will by a coparcener before 20th December, 2004, such disposition or alienation will not be affected or invalidated on the grounds of this amendment.
During the lifetime of a daughter, she has the right to seek partition of the HUF. She also has the right to bequeath her share in the HUF by will.
The rights of the daughter are well enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma[5].
It follows that a daughter (including a married daughter) can, in principle, be Karta of the HUF. This issue was raised and answered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manu Gupta v/s Sujata Sharma and others[6].
Interestingly, a married daughter is a coparcener in the HUF of her father and is a member of the HUF of her husband.
Rights of a daughter’s legal heirs after her death
The rights of a daughter in an HUF governed by Mitakshara law will devolve by testacy (i.e. by a will) or intestacy, as the case may be. However, her children will not become coparceners in her father’s HUF by birth (or adoption) as they would have had they been the children of a male coparcener. This question has been discussed at some length by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its Judgment in the case of Vishwambhar s/o Namdev Nikam & Anr. v. Sow. Sunanda w/o Maheshankar Suryawanshi & Ors.[7]
Therefore, if a daughter predeceases her father (and he dies without a will), the daughter’s children will be treated as heirs of their maternal grandfather. They will not be on par with children of the deceased’s sons, who will be coparceners in their own right.
Conclusion and Future Scope
What emerges from the above is that while the 2005 Amendment has conferred several rights in an HUF upon a daughter, it is argued that the rights of a daughter may not be equal to those of her brother in all respects. Particularly, when it comes to devolution of such rights to her own children.
Whether the Legislature should go a step further and confer rights on the lineal descendants of a daughter in the same manner as a son is a question for consideration and discussion as it would also fundamentally alter the meaning and understanding of an HUF.
A Hindu Undivided Family is a recognized “person” under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 2025, specifically for Hindus (including Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists). It continues to be an effective a vehicle for tax planning for such families. It is to be seen whether this concept survives the implementation of a uniform civil code throughout India.
Reference
[1] Revanasiddappa and Another v. Mallikarjun and Others [(2023) 10 SCC 1]
[2] Ibid
[3] (1977) 3 SCC 385
[4] Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
[5] (2020) 9 SCC 1
[6] (2024) 312 DLT 125 (DB) or 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7722
[7] Civil Revision Application No. 119 of 2025
Author Bio
