Part I : Introduction
Law of Intestate and Testamentary Succession in India
Part II : Hindu Law
Chapter 1 : Sources of Hindu Law
Chapter 2 : Hindu Joint Family
Chapter 3 : Coparcenary
Chapter 4 : Dayabhaga Joint Family
Chapter 5 : Categorisation of Properties
Chapter 6 : Karta
Chapter 7 : Trading Families
Chapter 8 : Alienation of Joint Family Property
Chapter 9 : Son's Liability to Pay Father's Debts
Chapter 10 : Partition
Chapter 11 : Legislative Interventions in the Concept of Hindu Joint Family and the Coparcenary
Chapter 12 : Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Part III : Muslim Law
Chapter 13 : Muslim Law
Chapter 14 : Gifts
Chapter 15 : Wills (Wasiyat)
Chapter 16 : Gifts made during Marz-UL-Maut
Chapter 17 : Inheritance
Part IV : Annexures
ANNEXURE I: I The Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850
ANNEXURE II: The Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928
ANNEXURE III: The Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930
ANNEXURE IV: The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
ANNEXURE V: The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
Subject Index

The judicial interpretations in the domain of Family Law II, since the publication of the Fourth Edition around three years back, and notwithstanding the absence of legislative modifications, have been varied and impactful. It has been more than 16 years that a Hindu daughter gained entry into the classical concept of Mitakshara (male only) coparcenary, yet her rights and entitlements that ooze legislative clarity saw the imposition of unnecessary and unwarranted judicial stipulations. The past year witnessed the crystallization of her right by a powerful pronouncement by the Apex Court in the shape of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, laying to rest the conflicting and surprising judgments rendered by its own earlier benches. Hopefully that would set at rest the confusion created by the earlier pronouncements and facilitate consolidation of her status and property in tune with the legislative accord. It is heartening to note that more and more daughters have started to come out of their shell and are breaking the social stereotypes and shackles of an obligatory relinquishment of their legitimate shares in favor of their brothers. The judiciary is actively supporting them as well in claiming their lawful shares. With the continuation of the Hindu joint family and coparcenary, the ownership of two kinds of property by a Hindu carries on, viz., a share in the coparcenary property and separate property, and even though the classification of both is distinct and clear, a confusion still persists in the categorization of property and its devolution linked with the sex of the holder. The legislative mandate of the application of a notional partition at the time of the demise of an undivided male coparcener automatically converts his undivided share into his separate property, with his class-I heirs acquiring it, resulting in a complete abolition of the application of the Doctrine of Survivorship. However, the devolution of an undivided interest in Mitakshara coparcenary in the case of a female coparcener is still unclear, as her share in the event of her death as an undivided member of the coparcenary does not go to her primary heirs, which include her husband, but would go only to her children or/and children of deceased children. Judicial precedents suggest the application of the doctrine of survivorship if a female coparcener dies issueless (even if she was married), which stands in a sharp contradiction to the legislative consequences in the case of the death of a male coparcener. The complete exclusion of the spouse of a female intestate with respect to the share in coparcenary property and the inclusion of the spouse of a male coparcener in an identical situation actually create a distinction between the rights of a son and a daughter in a Mitakshara coparcenary that is contradictory to what the legislature intended. ---provided by publisher