Succession to a Hindu male dying intestate - Family Law I - Hindu Law

← All Family Law I - Hindu Law topics Past papers

On this page

1. The traditional law before 1956
2. Section 8: the general rules
3. Class I heirs and their shares
4. Class II heirs
5. Agnates and cognates: sections 3, 12 and 13
6. Escheat: section 29
7. Disqualifications: sections 24 to 28
8. Devolution of coparcenary interest: section 6
9. Problem
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

Learn the ladder. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 sets four rungs: Class I heirs, then Class II heirs, then agnates, then cognates. If none of them exists, the property goes to the Government under section 29. Almost every question on this topic, essay or problem, is answered by placing the claimants on the right rung and then applying the distribution rules in sections 9 to 13.

1. The traditional law before 1956

Under the Mitakshara, a man's property fell into two kinds. His interest in joint family (coparcenary) property passed by survivorship to the other coparceners; it was never “inherited”. Only his separate property passed by succession, and the order of heirs was based on propinquity (nearness of blood): first the sapindas, then the samanodakas, then the bandhus (cognates). Males and agnates were heavily preferred, and only five females (widow, daughter, mother, paternal grandmother and paternal great-grandmother) were recognised as heirs in most of the country.

Under the Dayabhaga (Bengal and Assam) there was no birth right and no survivorship. Every member held a defined share, which passed by succession, and the order of heirs turned on religious efficacy: the capacity of the heir to offer pinda to the deceased.

A woman who inherited, under either school, took only a limited estate (woman's estate). On her death the property went back to the reversioners of the last male holder. The Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 gave the widow a share, but still only as a limited owner. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 replaced all of this with a single code applying to both schools, though it left the Mitakshara coparcenary itself in place (section 6).

2. Section 8: the general rules

The property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves according to the Chapter:

(a) firstly, upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no Class I heir, upon the heirs in Class II;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of either class, upon the agnates of the deceased; and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, upon the cognates.

Property inherited by a son from his father under section 8 is his separate property, not joint family property in his hands: Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, 1986 INSC 143, (1986) 3 SCC 567. Where a coparcener died before 2005 and his interest passed under section 8, the property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the heirs: Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, 2016 INSC 236, (2016) 4 SCC 68.

3. Class I heirs and their shares

Class I originally had twelve heirs. The 2005 Amendment added four more, all through pre-deceased daughters and sons. The list now reads: son; daughter; widow; mother; son and daughter of a pre-deceased son; son and daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son, daughter and widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; and (added in 2005) son and daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter, and daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son.

Section 9: all Class I heirs take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs. Section 10 distributes the estate among them:

Rule 1. The widow takes one share; several widows together take one share.
Rule 2. Each surviving son, each surviving daughter and the mother take one share each.
Rule 3. The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or pre-deceased daughter together take one share.
Rule 4. That branch share is divided within the branch on the same lines (per stirpes).

The father is not a Class I heir. He heads Class II.

4. Class II heirs

Class II has nine entries: (I) father; (II) son's daughter's son, son's daughter's daughter, brother, sister; (III) daughter's son's son, daughter's son's daughter, daughter's daughter's son, daughter's daughter's daughter; (IV) brother's son, sister's son, brother's daughter, sister's daughter; (V) father's father, father's mother; (VI) father's widow, brother's widow; (VII) father's brother, father's sister; (VIII) mother's father, mother's mother; (IX) mother's brother, mother's sister. Brother and sister include only full and half (consanguine) blood, not uterine.

Section 9: an heir in an earlier entry excludes those in a later entry. Section 11: heirs in the same entry share equally. Section 18 prefers full blood over half blood where the nature of the relationship is otherwise the same.

5. Agnates and cognates: sections 3, 12 and 13

Section 3(1)(a): one person is an agnate of another if the two are related by blood or adoption wholly through males. Section 3(1)(c): one person is a cognate of another if the two are related by blood or adoption but not wholly through males. A father's brother's son is an agnate; a father's sister's son is a cognate. Sex of the heir is irrelevant: a brother's son's daughter is an agnate, because the chain of relationship runs through males.

Section 12 fixes the order among agnates (and, separately, among cognates):

Rule 1. Of two heirs, the one with fewer or no degrees of ascent is preferred.
Rule 2. Where the degrees of ascent are equal or none, the one with fewer or no degrees of descent is preferred.
Rule 3. Where neither is preferred under Rules 1 or 2, they take simultaneously.

Section 13 tells you how to count: degrees are reckoned from the intestate to the heir, in terms of degrees of ascent or descent or both; every generation is one degree, and the intestate is included in the count.

6. Escheat: section 29

If an intestate leaves no heir qualified to succeed, the property devolves on the Government, which takes it subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject. The Government takes as the ultimate successor, not as an heir.

7. Disqualifications: sections 24 to 28

Section 24 (omitted in 2005). It disqualified the widow of a pre-deceased son, the widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son and the widow of a brother if she had remarried when succession opened. It never applied to the intestate's own widow, and property once vested is not divested by later remarriage: Cherotte Sugathan v. Cherotte Bharathi, 2008 INSC 207, (2008) 2 SCC 610.
Section 25. A person who commits murder or abets it is disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of whose succession he did so. A person claiming through the murderer stands no better: Vellikannu v. R. Singaperumal, 2005 INSC 267, (2005) 6 SCC 622.
Section 26. The convert himself is not disqualified, but children born to him after conversion, and their descendants, cannot inherit from their Hindu relatives unless they are Hindus when succession opens.
Section 27. A disqualified heir is treated as if he had died before the intestate.
Section 28. No person is disqualified on the ground of any disease, defect or deformity, or on any other ground except as the Act provides.

8. Devolution of coparcenary interest: section 6

Before 2005. The interest of a Mitakshara coparcener passed by survivorship. But if he left a female Class I relative (or a male claiming through her), his interest passed by succession, and Explanation 1 required a notional partition just before his death to find that interest. In Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, 1978 INSC 93, (1978) 3 SCC 383, a man died leaving a widow, two sons and three daughters. On notional partition the widow took 1/4 in her own right; the husband's 1/4 was then divided among his six Class I heirs (1/24 each). Her total share was 1/4 + 1/24 = 7/24. The Court held the notional partition must be carried to its logical end.

After 2005. Section 6(3) provides that where a Hindu dies after 9 September 2005, his interest in Mitakshara property devolves by testamentary or intestate succession, not by survivorship. The property is deemed to have been partitioned just before death, the daughter is allotted the same share as a son, and the share of a pre-deceased son or daughter goes to that person's surviving children. (See the separate note on the 2005 Amendment.)

9. Problem

A Hindu male dies intestate in 2026 leaving his widow, his mother, his father, a son, and the daughter of a pre-deceased son. Distribute his separate property.

Issue. Who among the claimants are Class I heirs, and in what shares?

Law. Section 8(a) gives the estate first to Class I heirs, who take together (section 9). Section 10 gives one share each to the widow, each son and the mother, and one share to the branch of each pre-deceased son. The father is in Class II.

Application. The widow, mother, son and the pre-deceased son's daughter are all Class I heirs. The father is excluded by the presence of Class I heirs. There are four shares: widow, mother, son, and the branch of the pre-deceased son (taken wholly by his daughter).

Conclusion. Each takes 1/4. The father takes nothing.

Trap. Students often put the father in Class I because the mother is there. He is not. Equally, do not give the widows of the intestate one share each: Rule 1 of section 10 gives all widows together one share.

How this is examined

As an essay: “Explain the general rules of succession in the case of a Hindu male dying intestate” (set in January 2026). Structure it as section 8, Class I with section 10 rules, Class II with sections 9 and 11, agnates and cognates with sections 12 and 13, escheat, then a paragraph each on disqualifications and section 6. As a short note: “Agnate” (January 2026), where the definition in section 3(1)(a), an example, the contrast with cognate and the section 12 rules are enough. Distribution problems on Class I heirs are common; always state why an excluded claimant is excluded.