Skip to content
Bare act

Hindu Succession Act 1956, as amended in 2005

The 2005 substitution of s. 6 is the law: a daughter is a coparcener by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son, and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) settled that this does not depend on the father being alive on 9 September 2005. ss. 23 and 24 were omitted in 2005. Where this subject discusses the pre-2005 position it says so expressly, because the older scheme still governs successions that opened before that date.

The sections below are the ones the LL.B. papers examine on this Act, with the unit that covers each and the cases decided on it. The official text is on India Code ↗.

Sections in the syllabus

s. 2

s. 2(1)(a)

s. 4

s. 5(i)

s. 6

s. 6(1)

s. 6(1)(a)

s. 6(1)(b)

s. 6(1)(c)

s. 6(4)

s. 6(5)

s. 6A

s. 8

s. 10

s. 10(1)(a)

s. 12

s. 12(b)

s. 13

s. 13(1)

s. 14

s. 14(1)

s. 14(2)

s. 14(4)

s. 15

s. 15(1)(b)

s. 15(2)

s. 16

s. 17

s. 18(2)(a)

s. 18(2)(b)

s. 19

s. 23

s. 23(1)

s. 23(1)(a)

s. 25

s. 27

s. 28

s. 29

s. 30

s. 37(2)

s. 38

s. 41

s. 41(h)

s. 494

Cases on this Act

Examined in