Succession Of Property And Co-Parcenery System Essay

Prior to 1956 Act, the ancient Indian law regarding succession of property and co-parcenery system was very rigid and patriarchic in nature. The laws of succession of ancient and traditional form remained in application without any substantial reforms till the middle of the nineteenth century. It derived its authority from Manusmriti in which Manu said that three persons, a wife, a son and a slave are declared by law to have in general no wealth exclusively their own; the wealth which they may earn is regularly acquired for the man to whom they belong .

Several difficulties and complications, however, came in the way owing mainly due to the differences in the law of inheritance amongst the two major schools of Hindu Law viz. the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga and the Patriachal system i.e the system prevailing in the southern parts of the country. The Mitakshara School of succession, which was prevalent in most of North India, believed in the exclusive domain of male heirs. In contrast, the Dayabhaga system did not recognize inheritance rights by birth and both sons and daughters did not have rights to the property during their father’s lifetime. At the other extreme

The provisions regarding succession in the Hindu Code Bill, as originally framed by the B.N.Rau Committee and piloted by Dr.Ambedkar, were for abolishing the Mitakshara coparcenary with its concept of survivorship and the son's right by birth in a joint family property and substituting it with the principle of inheritance by succession. These proposals met with a storm of conservative opposition. The most contested area was women’s property rights . There was strong opposition among the congress itself against conferring inheritance rights to daughters. The Congress legislator from West Bengal argued that only women of the lavender, lipstick and vanity bag variety were interested in the Bill