<p>The Supreme Court’s ruling that daughters are entitled to inherit the self-acquired and other properties of a male Hindu who dies intestate (without leaving a will) is yet another recognition of women’s property rights. The court ruled that the property would then go to the daughters by inheritance in preference to other members of the family. It also made it clear that daughters would have equal rights to their father’s property even prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. Male members of the family have often laid claim to the property of a man who died intestate and taken it. The ruling has made inheritance rights prior to the period before 1956 clear. It was given in an appeal against a Madras High Court judgement that had rejected a woman’s claim to the property of her father who had died intestate before 1956. </p>.<p>The court has been progressively interpreting laws to ensure that women are not denied their rightful claim to property in their families. In the present case, it quoted old Hindu customary laws and earlier judgements to show that even before the enactment of the succession law in 1956, wives and daughters had equal rights with sons to a man’s self-acquired property or property acquired by share in a joint estate. These rights had greater validity than the claims of other male members in the family and superseded them. It was the patriarchal practices and mindset that prevailed in society that resulted in depriving women of their rights. </p>.<p>While the courts have done much to interpret the laws and to settle fairly the cases that come before them, the situation on the ground is not fair and just for women in property matters, as on many other issues concerning them. The right to property and actual possession of the property is an indicator of social status and power. But women hold much less property than men in the country. Even when they hold property, many of them don’t control it. There is resistance to the registration of property in the name of women. There are conflicting laws on inheritance that work against women in states like Punjab, Haryana and UP. Married women are not considered legitimate inheritors of property even now. In most places, the dowry given at the time of marriage is considered as a full and final settlement of all claims to family property. Women need to be made aware of their rights and of the court rulings that support their case for equal rights to property. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s ruling that daughters are entitled to inherit the self-acquired and other properties of a male Hindu who dies intestate (without leaving a will) is yet another recognition of women’s property rights. The court ruled that the property would then go to the daughters by inheritance in preference to other members of the family. It also made it clear that daughters would have equal rights to their father’s property even prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. Male members of the family have often laid claim to the property of a man who died intestate and taken it. The ruling has made inheritance rights prior to the period before 1956 clear. It was given in an appeal against a Madras High Court judgement that had rejected a woman’s claim to the property of her father who had died intestate before 1956. </p>.<p>The court has been progressively interpreting laws to ensure that women are not denied their rightful claim to property in their families. In the present case, it quoted old Hindu customary laws and earlier judgements to show that even before the enactment of the succession law in 1956, wives and daughters had equal rights with sons to a man’s self-acquired property or property acquired by share in a joint estate. These rights had greater validity than the claims of other male members in the family and superseded them. It was the patriarchal practices and mindset that prevailed in society that resulted in depriving women of their rights. </p>.<p>While the courts have done much to interpret the laws and to settle fairly the cases that come before them, the situation on the ground is not fair and just for women in property matters, as on many other issues concerning them. The right to property and actual possession of the property is an indicator of social status and power. But women hold much less property than men in the country. Even when they hold property, many of them don’t control it. There is resistance to the registration of property in the name of women. There are conflicting laws on inheritance that work against women in states like Punjab, Haryana and UP. Married women are not considered legitimate inheritors of property even now. In most places, the dowry given at the time of marriage is considered as a full and final settlement of all claims to family property. Women need to be made aware of their rights and of the court rulings that support their case for equal rights to property. </p>