Doctrine of Survivorship and Its Abolition
Doctrine of Survivorship and Its Abolition
1. What Is the Doctrine of Survivorship?
The Doctrine of Survivorship is a principle of Hindu joint family law (under the Mitakshara school) where the interest of a deceased coparcener (a male member of the joint Hindu family) automatically passes to the surviving coparceners, not to his heirs.
⚖️ Key Feature: Property does not devolve by succession or inheritance, but by survivorship.
Basic Example:
If A, B, and C are coparceners in a Mitakshara joint family, and A dies, his share does not go to his widow or children (unless they are coparceners) — it automatically accrues to B and C.
2. Application in Hindu Law
Only male members were traditionally considered coparceners.
Daughters had no coparcenary rights under the old Mitakshara law.
Hence, widows and daughters were excluded from inheriting ancestral property.
This doctrine applied to ancestral property (not self-acquired property).
3. Judicial Interpretation Before Abolition
Case: Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum (1978)
The Supreme Court held that the notional partition must be assumed when a coparcener dies, to determine the share of the widow and heirs under succession.
This showed tension between survivorship and succession.
4. Abolition of the Doctrine
The Doctrine of Survivorship was abolished in India for joint family property upon the death of a male Hindu, by legislative reforms, especially with:
✅ Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
This amendment granted daughters equal coparcenary rights.
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended, clearly states:
On and from the commencement of the amendment, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right, just like a son.
The interest of a deceased coparcener will now devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship.
Key Changes after Abolition:
| Before Abolition | After Abolition |
|---|---|
| Only male coparceners had rights | Daughters are coparceners by birth |
| Property passed by survivorship | Property passes by succession |
| Widows/daughters often excluded | All legal heirs have equal rights |
5. Important Case Laws
1. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020)
Landmark case by Supreme Court.
Held that daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of whether the father was alive on 9 Sept 2005 (date of amendment).
Clarified that the abolition of survivorship is complete, and daughters are entitled to equal share.
2. Prakash v. Phulavati (2016)
Earlier ruling that said the father must be alive on 9 Sept 2005 for the daughter to claim coparcenary.
Overruled by Vineeta Sharma.
3. Danamma v. Amar (2018)
The Court upheld daughters’ rights even though the father had died before 2005.
Further built upon in Vineeta Sharma.
6. Summary Table
| Concept | Old Doctrine (Before 2005) | New Law (After 2005 Amendment) |
|---|---|---|
| Inheritance of property | Through survivorship among male heirs | Through succession by legal heirs |
| Rights of daughters | No right in ancestral property | Equal right as son, by birth |
| Doctrine of Survivorship | Applied to Mitakshara coparcenary | Abolished |
| Key case | Gurupad v. Hirabai | Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma |
7. Conclusion
The Doctrine of Survivorship was a cornerstone of traditional Mitakshara Hindu Law, excluding female members from property inheritance. Its abolition through legislative reform and judicial affirmation has marked a shift toward gender equality, ensuring that property devolves through succession, not merely among male survivors. The law now recognizes daughters as equal coparceners, reinforcing the constitutional values of equality and justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments