Property has long been regarded as one of the most enduring and valuable assets throughout history. Its significance transcends time, serving as a cornerstone of wealth, security, and stability. Across generations, owning property has symbolized not only financial prosperity but also societal status and independence. However, property has also been a persistent source of conflict, often leading to disputes and divisions within families. This is especially true in the context of inheritance, where questions of rightful ownership can fracture familial bonds. In India, the issue of property rights has been particularly complex for Hindu women, who historically faced systemic exclusion. Despite legal reforms like the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and its amendment in 2005, which aimed to provide daughters equal rights in ancestral property, societal acceptance and implementation remain uneven—making the struggle for gender equity in property ownership a continuing challenge.

In patriarchal societies like India, property has traditionally been concentrated in the hands of men. Historically, it was kings in the past and the karta (the elder male of a family) in more recent times who wielded primary control over property, often excluding women from such matters. This exclusion persisted despite evidence from ancient texts like the Vedas, which indicate that women were capable of owning and managing property. However, in practice, women were largely denied such rights, and transactions undertaken by them were often considered invalid. Women’s property was categorized into two primary types: stridhan and non-stridhan. Stridhan was further categorized into two types. The first, Saudayika property, included gifts received by women from their husbands, parents, or other family members, over which they had absolute ownership. The second type, Non-Saudayika property, comprised gifts received from non-relatives. Women had limited rights over this property after marriage and required their husband’s consent for any transaction or alienation. In contrast, Non-Stridhan property referred to property or gifts inherited from male or female relatives. Women could use such property but were not permitted to transfer or alienate it. Upon their death, Non-Stridhan property typically devolved in accordance with the prevailing inheritance laws.

There are two modes in which property is devolved: testamentary succession, where an individual distributes property through a will, and intestate succession, where no will exists and property is divided according to personal laws. While testamentary succession allows for a more straightforward transfer, challenges predominantly arise in cases of intestate succession, where customary and religious laws often disadvantage women. For inheritance purposes, property is categorized as either self-acquired or inherited. Inherited property, which is transferred across generations, is especially significant in shaping long-term economic security. However, women’s claims to inherited assets are frequently denied or contested due to discriminatory interpretations of personal laws. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 (HSA) governs the succession matter for Hindus including Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains.

HSA institutionalized gender discrimination through its unequal treatment of men and women, particularly in matters of joint family property by granting three generations of male descendants—sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons—an inherent birthright to ancestral property within joint Hindu families. The 1973 amendment continued this trend by distinguishing between individual (self-acquired) and joint family (ancestral) property. Daughters could only inherit individual property from a deceased father who died intestate but had no legal claim to joint family property. Whereas, sons were recognized as coparceners—members of the Hindu joint family with birthright access to ancestral assets under Section 6 of the Act. This provision, known as the Rule of Survivorship, allowed male coparceners to claim, divide, or inherit joint family property automatically, excluding daughters from such rights. Because a large number of property transfers occur through intestate succession, this framework has historically denied women equal access to ancestral assets.

In order to end such disparity, several Indian states took independent legislative action to address these disparities. Kerala led the way in 1975 by completely abolishing the joint Hindu family system. This was followed by Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Maharashtra in the 1980s and 1990s, which enacted state-level amendments to grant daughters equal coparcenary rights from birth. These reforms sought to bridge traditional and modern legal approaches by aligning patriarchal and matriarchal customs, and offering daughters the same rights and responsibilities as sons regarding ancestral property. However, since only five states implemented such progressive reforms, while the original 1956 Act remained in effect elsewhere, this fragmented legal framework created inconsistencies and practical challenges in enforcement, especially for families with properties spread across different states. This legal ambiguity often led to increased disputes and further marginalization of women’s inheritance claims.

It was not until 2005 that a nationwide legal reform was undertaken. Following extensive consultations and recommendations by the Law Commission of India, which submitted its 174th Report in 2000, the central government introduced a bill to amend the HSA. This culminated in the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which came into effect on September 9, 2005. This amendment marked a significant shift in women’s inheritance rights across India. Section 6 of the Act was revised to eliminate the survivorship rule, and daughters—regardless of marital status or date of birth—were granted equal coparcenary rights by birth, placing them on par with sons in matters of joint family property. The amendment applied retrospectively, ensuring that women born before the 2005 amendment were also entitled to equal inheritance.

While this reform was a major step forward in achieving gender parity in property rights, its implementation raised numerous interpretational issues. Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has played a key role in clarifying these ambiguities through landmark judgments, reinforcing the intention of the amendment to promote equality and protect women’s rightful claims to ancestral property. In Prakash v. Phulwati (2016), the Supreme Court ruled that a daughter could inherit ancestral property only if both she and her father were alive on the 2005 amendment’s enforcement date (September 9, 2005). However, in Danamma v. Amar Singh (2018), the Court held that daughters could inherit even if the father had passed away before the amendment. This conflicting interpretation was resolved in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), where the Court clarified that daughters have coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of the father’s status or date of birth, affirming gender equality in inheritance.

In Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnuswamy (2022), the Court addressed two key questions:

1. Can a daughter inherit her father’s self-acquired property if he dies intestate?
2. Who inherits a Hindu woman’s property if she dies intestate?

It ruled that post-2005, daughters can inherit both self-acquired and ancestral property from their fathers. For intestate women, the succession follows Section 15 of the HSA, with property inherited from parents devolving on the father’s heirs and that from the husband or in-laws going to the husband’s heirs.

Property ownership is a foundational element in enabling women’s economic participation, especially in entrepreneurship. The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) highlights a significant gender disparity in land and property ownership in India, despite women’s crucial role in economic development. The survey shows that only 8.3% of women independently own land, and 13% have sole ownership of a house. Furthermore, 29% of women hold joint ownership of homes and land. Among the states, Meghalaya records the highest proportion of women landholders at 26%, while Punjab ranks the lowest at just 0.8%. The 2005 legislative reform marked a pivotal moment in advancing gender equality in property rights, and subsequent Supreme Court rulings have reinforced its principles. These legal developments have helped raise awareness and stimulated public discourse around women’s rights to ancestral property, with significant coverage in media and legal platforms. Despite these advancements, challenges remain, particularly in rural and marginalized communities where awareness is limited due to factors such as illiteracy, deep-rooted patriarchal norms, and limited legal outreach. Addressing these disparities requires targeted awareness campaigns, legal literacy initiatives, and stronger implementation mechanisms to ensure that the constitutional promise of gender-equal property rights is realized for all women, across all strata of society.