Hindu Woman’s Property Right in Context

advtanmoy 16/11/2018 6 minutes read

Under The Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937

Offerings from relations:- This is a acknowledged form of the stridhan. Gifts given to woman, throughout maidenhood, coverture or widowhood, by her parents and their relatives, or by the husband and his relatives. The Dayabagha School does not identify gifts of permanent property by spouse as stridhan.

Offerings from strangers:- Property given by gifts to a woman during her life time by strangers also acknowledged her stridhan. But these were for the period of her husband’s life time in the husband’s power. On his death these became her absolute stridhan.

Property achieved by self-exertion and mechanical arts:- A woman may achieve property at any phase of her existence by her personal self-exertion such as by physical labour, by service, by playing, dancing etc. or by any involuntary art. The property thus achieved during her life time by personal effort is her stridhan.

Property earned with stridhan:- It is an established law that the properties earned with stridhan or with the investments of stridhan, as well as accumulations and investments of the profits of stridhan, also acknowlged stridhan.

Property achieved by cooperation:- When a person achieves property under a cooperation, where under she gives up her privileges to her stridhan will be stridhan.

Property acquired by unfavorable control:- It is a well known law that any property that a woman achieves at any phase of her existence by unfavourable environment is her stridhan.

Property achieved for protection:- The expenses given to a Hindu female in total or occasionally for her protection, and all the fields of such protection recognize her stridhan. Likewise, all impermanent and permanent properties given to her by way of a fixed gift in pursuance of protection represent her stridhan.

Property acquired by inheritance:- A Hindu female can inherit property from her parents as well as from her husband. Thus properties obtain from parents or from husband also constitute her stridhan.

Share acquired on division:- The share obtained on division of property is also her total property or stridhan.

The essence of a coparcenary under the Mitakshra Law is unity of ownership.
Hindu Mitakshara [Vijaneshwar] law determines estates in terms of tradition.
Mitakshara is a straightforward Law. In the Mitakshara School, the allocation of inherited property was based on the law of possession by birth The joint family property went to the group known as coparceners. The property is inherited in the Dayabhaga School[Jeenutavahan] after the death of the person who was in possession of it. Benaras School of Hindu Law is little different.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, bases its rule of succession on the basic Mitakshara principle of propinquity, i.e., preference of heirs on the basis of proximity of relationship.
The rules relating to making of a will is considered in the law of testamentary succession .
The law of inheritance is different from the law of succession
Hindu Statutory Interpretation :-The textual prohibition was only directory and not mandatory by applying a rule of interpretation expounded by Jamini, the author of ‘Purva Mimansa’ that all texts, supported by the assigning of a reason were to be deemed not as vidhi but as arthavada or recommendatory.
According to Mitakshra Law as administered in West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, no co-parcener can alienate even for value his undivided interest without the consent of the other co-parceners, unless the alienation be for legal necessity or for payment of antecedent debt by father. This is not all, even in case of alienation of such property in favour of a coparcener, the consent of the other co-parceners is also necessary, (see Para 260, Chapter XII of Mulla Principles of Hindu Law-15th Edition at page 347).
In Punjab and Haryana, the Hindus are governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. According to paragragh 269 of the Hindu Law by Mulla which is a book of unquestioned authority since more than half a century, where a member of joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshra law sells or mortgages the joint Hindu family property or any part thereof without the consent of the coparcener, the alienation is liable to be set aside wholly unless it was for legal necessity and it does not pass the share even of the alienating coparcenor.
Supreme Court in Balmukand Vs. Kamla Wati and Others, :
No doubt Pindi Dass himself was bound by the contract which he has entered into and the Plaintiff would have been entitled to the benefit of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act which runs thus.

On the basis of the same observations, the decision in Jawala Singh’s case (supra) was confirmed by the Letters Patent Bench in L. P. A. No 692 of 1973. In Balmukand’s case (supra) no question that where Mitakshra law prevailed, alienation of joint Hindu family property made by Manager or any coparcenor without any legal necessity and consent by the other coparceners did not bind the share of the alienor, was raised before the Supreme Court and as such the observations referred to above which were made in the context of Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act would be operative in that limited sphere. By no stretch of reasoning while making the said observations, the Supreme Court can be said to have laid down the law that in the States where Mitakshra law applies, alienation would be binding qua the share of the vendor even though it was made without the consent of other coparceners and legal necessity nor for the benefit of the estate.