Litigation Newsletter – Limitations On Coparcenary Rights Through Maternal Lineage Under Hindu Law

Introduction:

The 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (“HSA”), has protected the property rights of a Hindu female and ensured that Hindu daughters are given coparcenary rights by birth, equal to that of a Hindu male. However, a recent Bombay High Court judgment in the case of (Vishwambhar Namdev Nikam & Anr. Vs Sunanda Maheshankar Surywanshi & Ors. Civ. Revision Application 119/2025) has further decoded and clarified that the same is not without limitations.

Background:

The original suit was filed by a granddaughter seeking a share in the ancestral property of her maternal grandfather. Her main claim was that since her mother was a coparcener in the said property by virtue of the 2005 amendment, she would also have a share/ right in the same.

The Hon'ble High Court considered the issue of whether the granddaughter in the lifetime of her mother can claim a share in the ancestral property at a time when her mother has not filed any similar claims for partition/undivided share in the property. It was observed that the property inherited from the maternal side does not extend to grandchildren during the lifetime of the mother, specifically when the mother has not filed any separate claims for partition/undivided share and that coparcenary rights do not get automatically transferred to grandchildren by birth.

Who is a Coparcener?

The above-mentioned judgement extends not only to granddaughters but also to grandsons from the maternal side i.e. the mother's lineage. Therefore, it is important to understand the term coparcener.

The Hindu law of inheritance is based on the Mitakshara school of thought as per which sons and post the 2005 amendment even daughters, have exclusive rights by birth to parental property. Therefore, a Hindu male/female up to four generations of his or her lineage, i.e. the son/daughter, grandson/daughter, and great-grandson/daughter would be termed as a coparcener by birth. However, these rights do not extend to maternal descendants.

The courts have time and again clarified that a coparcenary heir is one who has inherited property from their father, grandfather, and great grandfather. In the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 it was further opined that only a coparcener by birth or by way of adoption can claim or demand partition.

Concepts of Obstructed and Unobstructed Heritage

Coparcenary rights extend to four generations along the paternal line but do not apply to descendants through the maternal line. This distinction arises from the classification of inheritance: while rights through the paternal lineage are considered unobstructed heritage, conferring coparcenary rights by birth, inheritance through the maternal lineage is treated as obstructed heritage, and therefore does not attract coparcenary rights.

Unobstructed heritage or apratibandha daya means that inheritance rights flow automatically upon the birth of the son/daughter regardless of whether the last owner i.e. the father or grandfather is alive. This right extends only to the paternal lineage and not the maternal lineage. Inheritance rights are passed on through survivorship.

Obstructed heritage or sapratibandha daya on the other hand implies to inheritance which is obstructed by the last owner. In such cases, inheritance rights are transferred through succession and not by survivorship. Inheritance rights are obstructed by the last owner and cannot be acquired unless the last owner dies. Even after the death of the last owner, inheritance rights devolve upon the next generation through succession and are not transferred automatically.

In the context of the present case, the granddaughter claimed inheritance rights of her maternal grandfather's property during the lifetime of her mother. The mother did not claim for separate partition/share in the property and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court rightly opined that the granddaughter cannot claim inheritance rights and is not a coparcener to the maternal property.

Legal Implications

The aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has multiple legal implications some of which are as follows:

• This judgment is significant in the context of Hindu Coparcenary Law in India as grandchildren through the maternal lineage cannot claim property rights by birth or through survivorship. In such instances, grandchildren may have to apply for succession after the death of the last owner.
• The doctrinal clarity with respect to obstructed and unobstructed heritage will help Civil courts around the country to filter out the premature or baseless claims to ancestral property.
• While the judgment protects daughters' rights post the 2005 amendment, it ensures that these rights are not extended beyond the legislative intent of the 2005 amendment thereby preventing frivolous claims.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.