Who inherits when a Hindu dies without a will

The intestate succession of a Hindu is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, read with the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Act overrides the pre-1956 customary Hindu law to the extent of inconsistency (Section 4). Two distinct regimes operate side by side. Section 6 governs the devolution of a male Hindu's undivided interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property; Section 8 governs his separate and self-acquired property. Commissioner of Wealth Tax v Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 settled that a son does not have a birthright in his father's separate property — that property devolves under Section 8 as the father's individual estate. Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 settled that a daughter is a coparcener by birth under amended Section 6, irrespective of whether her father was alive on 9 September 2005, overruling Prakash v Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 on the father's-survival requirement. This guide traces the order of succession — Class I heirs in equal share, Class II heirs entry-by-entry, agnates, cognates — and the share computation under Sections 9, 10 and 11.

A Hindu who dies without a will leaves behind two kinds of property and two different sets of inheritance rules. The undivided interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property devolves under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — by survivorship before the 2005 amendment, by testamentary or intestate succession after it. Every other piece of property he owned — his self-acquired earnings, the share that came to him absolutely on partition, property he inherited from a person other than his three immediate male ancestors — devolves under Section 8 as his separate estate. The same Act covers a female Hindu under Sections 14 to 16, but with a different list of heirs and a different priority depending on the source of the property. The Act applies to every person who is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion (Section 2), and overrides the pre-codification customary law to the extent of inconsistency (Section 4). The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 reshaped the coparcenary regime; Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 settled its retrospective reach. The architecture has settled, but the share computation in any given family depends on whether the property is coparcenary or separate, and on which heirs are alive when succession opens.

Two regimes — Section 6 (coparcenary) and Section 8 (separate property)

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 does not treat all property of a male Hindu as a single fund. The Mitakshara joint Hindu family continues as a juristic structure after 1956; the Act overlays a statutory mode of devolution on the coparcenary interest while leaving the coparcenary itself intact. A male Hindu's property at the moment of his death divides into two heads.

The first is his undivided interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property. Before the 2005 amendment, this devolved by survivorship — except where he was survived by a female Class I heir, when the proviso to old Section 6 directed devolution of his notional share by intestate succession. After the 2005 amendment, daughters are coparceners by birth (Section 6(1)(a)) and survivorship as a mode of coparcenary devolution has been abolished (Section 6(3)). On the death of a coparcener after 9 September 2005, his interest passes by testamentary or intestate succession; Section 8 governs the intestate route.

The second head is his separate and self-acquired property — earnings, property received absolutely on partition, property inherited from anyone other than his three immediate male ancestors, gifts and bequests. The practical effect is that two parallel inheritances may open on the same death. Class I heirs take the father's separate property under Section 8; the surviving coparceners (now including daughters) take their pre-existing shares in the coparcenary, with the deceased's notional share routed through Section 8 to his Class I heirs as well. Share computation in a multi-generation joint family is done in stages — first the coparcenary partition, then the intestate succession on the deceased's notional share, then the separate inheritance under Section 8.

The order of succession — Section 8

Section 8 sets out the order of succession to the property of a male Hindu who dies intestate. The property devolves in the following order: (a) firstly, upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of Class I, then upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two Classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. Section 9 supplies the rule of preference within each Class — Class I heirs take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all others; among Class II heirs, those in the first entry take to the exclusion of those in the second entry, and so on in succession.

The "Indian-first" principle of the older customary law — preference for males, exclusion of married daughters, the spiritual-benefit hierarchy of the Dayabhaga school — is displaced. Section 4 makes the Act override the pre-1956 customary Hindu law to the extent of inconsistency. The Vijnaneshwara test of propinquity (nearness of blood) replaces the Dayabhaga test of spiritual benefit; mother is preferred over father (mother is a Class I heir, father is the sole entry in Class II Entry I); married and unmarried daughters are treated alike; the daughter, the widow and the son inherit simultaneously.

Class I heirs — twelve simultaneous claimants

Class I of the Schedule, after the 2005 amendment, lists twelve categories of heirs: son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a predeceased son; daughter of a predeceased son; widow of a predeceased son; son of a predeceased daughter; daughter of a predeceased daughter; son of a predeceased son of a predeceased son; daughter of a predeceased son of a predeceased son; widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. The 2005 amendment added four further categories — son of a predeceased daughter of a predeceased daughter; daughter of a predeceased daughter of a predeceased daughter; daughter of a predeceased son of a predeceased daughter; daughter of a predeceased daughter of a predeceased son — taking the count to sixteen. Of these, nine are female heirs. The daughter's son is male but claims through his mother. Only three are male heirs who claim directly through male links — son, son of a predeceased son, son of a predeceased son of a predeceased son.

The Class I list is exhaustive within its category. A father, a brother, a sister and grandparents on either side do not figure in Class I; they are pushed to Class II. A step-son and a step-daughter are not "son" and "daughter" for Section 8 — only legitimate children and adopted children (and children of a void or annulled voidable marriage, by virtue of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) qualify. An illegitimate child of a male Hindu does not inherit from him under Section 8; the illegitimate child inherits only from the mother. A posthumous child — one in the womb at the date of death — is treated as alive at the date of succession (Section 20) and inherits accordingly.

The widow's status is unaffected by remarriage after succession opens. The widow inherits simultaneously with the other Class I heirs and her share is not divested by her subsequent remarriage; the Hindu Widows' Re-Marriage Act, 1856 has been repealed, and Section 24 of the HSA — which earlier disqualified a son's widow, a son's son's widow and a brother's widow on remarriage before succession opened — was itself repealed by the 2005 amendment. A divorced wife is not a widow and does not inherit; an unchaste widow is not disqualified.

Share distribution among Class I — Section 10

Section 10 prescribes four rules for the distribution of the property among Class I heirs. Rule 1 — the intestate's widow takes one share; if there is more than one widow, they together take one share. Rule 2 — the surviving sons and daughters and the mother each take one share. Rule 3 — the heirs in the branch of each predeceased son and each predeceased daughter take between them one share. Rule 4 — among the heirs of a predeceased son, his widow takes one share, his surviving sons and daughters each take one share, the rule of representation applying within that branch; among the heirs of a predeceased daughter, her sons and daughters share equally per capita.

The combined effect is that the surviving children and the widow and the mother all take per capita, while the branch of a predeceased child takes per stirpes. Take an illustration. P dies leaving his widow W, his mother M, two sons S1 and S2, two daughters D1 and D2, and a predeceased son PS who had left a widow PSW, a son PSS and a daughter PSD. The number of shares at the first level is seven — W, M, S1, S2, D1, D2 and the branch of PS — so each share is 1/7. W, M, S1, S2, D1 and D2 take 1/7 each. The 1/7 share of the branch of PS is divided per capita among PSW, PSS and PSD under Rule 4 — so each of them takes 1/21.

Where there are two widows, they together take one share — so each widow takes half of one share. If the deceased had no surviving widow and the mother is alive, the mother takes one share alongside the children. If the mother is also dead, only the children and the branches of predeceased children share. Section 19 of the Act adds a procedural rule — when two or more heirs succeed together, they take the property as tenants-in-common, not as joint tenants, and each holds their share per capita as separate property.

Class II heirs — nine entries, in order

If there is no Class I heir surviving, the property passes to Class II heirs under Section 9. Class II of the Schedule has nine entries arranged in order of preference. Entry I — Father. Entry II — Son's daughter's son; Brother; Sister. Entry III — Daughter's son's son; Daughter's son's daughter; Daughter's daughter's son; Daughter's daughter's daughter (some of these have been shifted to Class I by the 2005 amendment). Entry IV — Brother's son; Sister's son; Brother's daughter; Sister's daughter. Entry V — Father's father; Father's mother. Entry VI — Father's widow; Brother's widow. Entry VII — Father's brother; Father's sister. Entry VIII — Mother's father; Mother's mother. Entry IX — Mother's brother; Mother's sister.

The rule under Section 9 is that the heirs in an earlier entry exclude all heirs in a later entry. Within an entry, the heirs take per capita in equal shares under Section 11 — the rule of representation (per stirpes) which governs Class I does not extend to Class II. So if the father (Entry I) is alive, no one in Entries II to IX takes anything. If the father is dead but a brother (Entry II) survives, the brother takes to the exclusion of nephews and nieces (Entry IV). If only Entry IV is reached — for instance, where the father, the brothers and the sisters are all dead but their children survive — the children of brothers and sisters share equally per capita, regardless of which branch they come from.

Full blood is preferred to half blood under Section 18 where the relationship is otherwise the same. A brother by full blood excludes a brother by half blood. Uterine blood — children of the same mother by different husbands — is not "brother" or "sister" for the Schedule, though uterine relatives may inherit as cognates under residual provisions.

Agnates and cognates — Sections 12 and 13

Where there is no Class I or Class II heir, succession passes to the agnates of the deceased (Section 8(c)), and where there is no agnate, to the cognates (Section 8(d)). An "agnate" under Section 3(1)(a) is a person related to the deceased by blood or adoption wholly through males. A "cognate" under Section 3(1)(c) is a person related by blood or adoption but not wholly through males. The line traced exclusively through males — father, father's father, father's father's father, son's son's son and so on — produces agnates. Any female intervening in the chain of descent makes the relative a cognate — daughter's children, mother's relatives, sister's children (in the residual sense after they are accounted for in Class II).

The order of priority among agnates and among cognates is governed by Sections 12 and 13. Section 12 prescribes three rules. Rule 1 — between two heirs, the one with fewer degrees of ascent is preferred. Rule 2 — where the degrees of ascent are the same or none, the one with fewer degrees of descent is preferred. Rule 3 — where neither rule 1 nor rule 2 applies, the heirs take simultaneously. Section 13 supplies the method of computation. The degrees of ascent are measured by counting upwards from the intestate to the common ancestor; the degrees of descent by counting downwards from the common ancestor to the heir. Each generation is one degree.

The agnate-and-cognate route is rarely reached. The Class I list is wide enough to capture most surviving relatives, and the nine entries of Class II capture most of the rest. Agnates and cognates govern in cases where the deceased has no living children, no living spouse, no living parents, no living siblings or nephews or nieces, no living grandparents — that is, where the entire near family has predeceased.

The coparcenary regime under Section 6 — the 2005 amendment

Section 6, as substituted by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, recasts coparcenary devolution. Section 6(1)(a) makes the daughter a coparcener by birth in her own right, in the same manner as the son. Section 6(1)(b) gives her the same rights as she would have had if she had been a son. Section 6(1)(c) makes her subject to the same liabilities. Survivorship as a mode of devolution is abolished by Section 6(3) for deaths after 9 September 2005.

On the death of a coparcener after 9 September 2005, his interest devolves by testamentary or intestate succession. A "notional partition" is taken immediately before the death; the share that would have been allotted to him is the share that devolves on his heirs under Section 8. Section 6(5) saves any partition effected before 20 December 2004 — the date the Amendment Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha. "Partition" is narrowly defined in the Explanation — a partition effected by a registered deed under the Registration Act, 1908, or by a decree of a court. Oral partitions and informal family arrangements are not protected.

Vineeta Sharma — the retrospective settlement

The interpretive question the 2005 amendment left open was whether the daughter's coparcenary right depended on her father being alive on 9 September 2005. The Supreme Court in Prakash v Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 — a two-judge bench — had held that both the daughter and the father had to be alive on that date. A different two-judge bench in Danamma alias Suman Surpur v Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343 granted the daughter a share even where the father had died in 2001, without directly overruling Prakash v Phulavati. The conflict was referred to a three-judge bench.

The Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 held that the daughter is a coparcener by birth, and that the conferral does not depend on the father being alive on 9 September 2005. The right is by birth, not by inheritance — the amendment is "retroactive" rather than "retrospective" — it operates from 9 September 2005 onwards but bases its operation on the antecedent event of the daughter's birth. The bench overruled Prakash v Phulavati on the father's-survival requirement; Danamma was partly overruled to the extent it approved Prakash v Phulavati; the Section 6(1) and Section 6(5) savings for partitions before 20 December 2004 were preserved. The practical effect is that any daughter alive on 9 September 2005 is a coparcener-by-birth in her natal coparcenary, even where her father died before that date.

Self-acquired property and devolution under Section 8

The treatment of a father's self-acquired property is the practical key to many succession disputes. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 held that the self-acquired property of a father held by him absolutely does not constitute coparcenary property in his hands; the son has no birthright in it. On the father's death intestate, that property passes to his Class I heirs under Section 8 — the son taking as one of several Class I heirs per capita, not as a pre-existing coparcener. Yudhister v Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 reaffirms the rule.

This is a sharp departure from the pre-codification position. Under classical Mitakshara, ancestral property inherited from the three immediate male ancestors became coparcenary in the heir's hands, with birthright in his sons. After Chander Sen, property inherited under Section 8 after 1956 takes the character of separate property in the heir's hands. The Supreme Court in Arunachala Mudaliar v Muruganatha Mudaliar, AIR 1953 SC 495 supplied the older anchor — a father's gift or will to his son carries property as the son's separate property unless the father's intention was clearly to impress the coparcenary character.

Succession to a female Hindu — Sections 14, 15 and 16

Section 14 — the foundational reform of 1956 — converted every limited estate held by a Hindu woman before the Act into an absolute estate. Property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, is to be held by her as full owner. The earlier life-estate doctrine, under which a widow took her husband's property for life with reversion to his heirs on her death, is abolished.

Section 15(1) sets the general order of succession to a female Hindu dying intestate: firstly, on her sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and her husband; secondly, on the heirs of her husband; thirdly, on her mother and father; fourthly, on the heirs of her father; and lastly, on the heirs of her mother. Section 15(2) is the source-keeping exception — property inherited from her father or mother devolves on the heirs of her father (where she leaves no son, daughter or descendants of either); property inherited from her husband or her father-in-law devolves on the heirs of her husband (in the same residual condition). Section 16 supplies the per capita and per stirpes distribution rules for the order set out in Section 15.

Special rules — disqualification, dwelling-house preference, illegitimacy

Section 25 disqualifies a person who has committed or abetted the murder of the person whose property the disqualified person stands to inherit. Section 26 disqualifies a person who has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion — but only that convert; his or her descendants, if born Hindus, are not disqualified. Section 24 of the unamended Act — which disqualified a son's widow, a son's son's widow and a brother's widow on remarriage before succession opened — was repealed by the 2005 amendment. Section 23 — restricting female heirs from claiming partition of the dwelling-house until male heirs chose to divide — was also omitted by the 2005 amendment.

Section 22 confers a preferential right on a Class I heir to acquire the share of another Class I heir who proposes to transfer it to an outsider. The price is to be determined by agreement or, failing agreement, by the court. The aim is to keep the deceased's property within the family until the heirs have had a chance to acquire each other's shares.

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers legitimacy on the children of a void marriage and the children of an annulled voidable marriage; such children inherit the property of their parents. Section 16(3) restricts that inheritance to the parents' property and does not extend it to inheritance through the parents from other relatives. The illegitimate child of a Hindu male is not a Class I heir of the father under Section 8; the illegitimate child inherits only from the mother and from the mother's relatives, by the proviso to Section 3(1)(j).

Illustrations — share computation under combined Sections 6 and 8

Illustration one. P, a Hindu male governed by Mitakshara law, dies in 2024 leaving his widow W, his son S, his daughter D, and his mother M. P held coparcenary property worth Rs 120 lakh jointly with S, and separate property worth Rs 30 lakh. Under Section 6(3), a notional partition is taken — three coparceners (P, S, D) plus widow W taking a share equal to a son's — giving four shares of Rs 30 lakh each. P's notional share of Rs 30 lakh plus his separate Rs 30 lakh — totalling Rs 60 lakh — devolves under Section 8 on Class I heirs W, S, D, M, equal per capita at Rs 15 lakh each. Final: W = Rs 45 lakh; S = Rs 45 lakh; D = Rs 45 lakh; M = Rs 15 lakh.

Illustration two. Q dies leaving widow W, mother M, no children, father F (alive), two brothers and a sister. Q held only self-acquired property of Rs 60 lakh. Under Section 8(a), only Class I heirs take — W and M get Rs 30 lakh each. F is in Class II Entry I and takes nothing because Class I heirs exist; the brothers and sister, in Class II Entry II, are similarly excluded.

Illustration three — female Hindu's property under the source rule. X, a female Hindu, dies in 2024 intestate leaving no children and no husband. She holds a flat inherited from her father in 2010 and a deposit inherited from her husband in 2015. Under Section 15(2)(a), the flat devolves on the heirs of her father (her brother takes it). Under Section 15(2)(b), the deposit devolves on the heirs of her husband (her father-in-law takes it). Her mother — though a Section 15(1)(c) heir — takes nothing, because Section 15(2) keeps inherited property within its source line.

What remains contested — completed partitions, the Mitakshara-Dayabhaga divide, state amendments

Three questions in Hindu intestate succession remain contested in 2026.

The first is the reach of Vineeta Sharma in cases of completed partitions effected by oral arrangement before 20 December 2004. The decision held that "partition" for Section 6(5) is narrowly defined — registered partition deed or court decree — and that oral partitions are not protected. But the savings under the proviso to Section 6(1) preserve "any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004". The interaction between the narrow Section 6(5) definition and the wider proviso to Section 6(1) is unresolved. Vineeta Sharma directed the lower courts to be "extremely careful" in accepting oral partitions and to require contemporaneous public documents in support. The line between a genuine pre-2004 oral partition (which may be protected) and a fabricated one (which is not) is now drawn by district-level evidence.

The second is the position of property held by Dayabhaga families. The Dayabhaga school — prevailing in West Bengal and Assam — does not recognise birthright in ancestral property; the son acquires an interest only on the death of the father. The 2005 amendment as substituted speaks of "Mitakshara coparcenary" specifically. The interaction between the amendment and Dayabhaga property is unsettled — a Dayabhaga son does not have birthright, so a Dayabhaga daughter cannot have a birthright either; the daughter under Dayabhaga inherits along with the son under Section 8 on the father's death, but is not a coparcener-by-birth in the same sense.

The third is the residual effect of state amendments that pre-dated the 2005 central amendment. The Andhra Pradesh amendment of 1986, the Tamil Nadu amendment of 1989, the Karnataka amendment of 1990 and the Maharashtra amendment of 1994 had each conferred coparcenary status on unmarried daughters in those states. The 2005 central amendment is silent on whether it supersedes the state amendments or operates alongside them. The Supreme Court has not squarely held that the state amendments are superseded by the 2005 central amendment; in practice, the central amendment is wider (it does not distinguish between married and unmarried daughters) and the state amendments — to the extent they are narrower — are read as overridden by the central amendment under Article 254 of the Constitution.

The intestate-succession framework of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, after the 2005 amendment and Vineeta Sharma, has settled in its main lines. Class I, Class II, agnates, cognates; the daughter as coparcener by birth; the separation of coparcenary and self-acquired property; the source-keeping rule for female Hindus. The doctrinal points that remain — oral partitions, Dayabhaga interaction, state-amendment overlap — are points of marginal calibration. For the great majority of intestate Hindu deaths, the order of succession and the share computation are now matters of arithmetic, not contestation.