Streedhana (Stridhan) and Woman’s Estate

The women play a significant role in the life of every individual human being.
Securing her better birthrights would mean giving better future to our own society,
family and to every individual. Developed societies/Nations are developed because
they have always taken keen interest in providing equal rights to women with that of
men. Developing societies/Nations are developing because they understand the need
of the hour and in every possible way trying to give women better rights. The gender
inequality facets in different forms, but the most tedious one percept relate to the
effective property rights. This disparity in property right pertaining to gender, spells
from ancient times.

Under ancient Hindu Society, a woman was considered to be of low in social status
and treated as a dependent with barely any property rights. As per the text of
Baudhayana, women had no place in Hindu scheme of inheritance and “Females were
devoid of powers and incompetent to inherit.” But by virtue of special texts specified
female heirs were given the right inherit. The Dayabhaga law and the Banaras and
Mithila sub-schools of Mitakshara law recognized five females’ relations as being
entitled to inherit namely; widow, daughter, mother, paternal grandmother, and
paternal great grandmother and the Madras and Bombay sub-schools recognized the
heritable capacity of a larger number of female heirs.

During the British period social reforms movements raised the issue of amelioration of
women’s position in society. The earliest legislation brought females into the scheme
of inheritance as The Hindu Law of Inheritance Act, 1929. This Act, conferred
inheritance rights on three females heirs i.e., son’s daughter, daughter’s daughters and
sister (thereby creating a limited restriction on the rule of survivorship). During this
period another landmark legislation conferring ownership right on a woman was the
Hindu women’s Right to Property Act XVIII of 1937. This Act brought about
revolutionary changes in the Hindu Law of all schools, and affected not only the law
of coparcenary but also the law of partition, alienation or property, inheritance and
adoption.
The Act of 1937 enabled the widow to succeed along with the son and to take the
same share as the son. The widow is not a coparcener even though she posses a right
akin to coparcener’s interest in the property and is a member of the joint family.
However, under the Act, the widow was entitled only to a limited estate in the
property of the deceased with a right to claim partition. A daughter had virtually no
inheritance rights at all. But, both enactments largely left untouched the basic features
of discrimination against women and were subsequently repealed. Stridhan system
was totally changed by this Act.

Prior to commencement of the Act of 1956 the property held by a Hindu female was
classified under two heads: (1) Stridhan and (2) Hindu Women’s estate. The former
was regarded as her absolute property over which she had full ownership and on her
death it devolved upon her heirs. The later was considered to be her limited estate with
respect to which her powers of alienation were limited. Such property on her death
devolved not on heirs but upon the next heirs of the last full owner. But section 14 of
the Act abolished the later classification and conferred absolute ownership on her with
respect to every property acquired by her through lawful means.

CLASSIFICATION OF WOMEN’S PROPERTY:

According to a text of Manu, there can be no property belonging to woman, Son or a

slave and whatever property is earned by them, belongs to that person to whom the
woman or slave belongs. It does not mean that they cannot own any property rather it
means that they cannot alienate the property. Manu's view has also been supportedby
Gautam. He observed that a woman can own separate property but she cannot alienate
the same.

The property of a Hindu woman can be classified into two categories:

(i) Those properties over which she has absolute ownership; and
(ii) Those properties over which she has limited ownership

Property falling under the former category are termed, as 'stridhana' and that falling
under the latter category are termed as 'woman's estate'. However, under the scheme
of the present Hindu Succession Act, 1956 any property acquired by a Hindu female
either before the commencement of the Act or subsequent to it and which has been in
her possession on the date of such commencement, would be her absolute property,
which can be termed as Stridhan in the modern sense. The Act has dispensed with the
distinction between the Stridhan and woman's estate. It also dispenses with the
distinction with respect to the order of succession between stridhan and women’s
estate and a general rule of succession has been laid down under it.

Stridhan
The existence of Stridhan is an ingrained part of Indian culture from times of yore. As
male dominated as the society may be, the existence of the custom of 'bride price'
indicates that women understood the importance of financial independence and
safeguarding their interests long before the feminist movement made it popular to do
so.
Meaning of Stridhan: The word stridhan is composed of two words: Stri (woman)
and Dhana (Property). The word means the property belonging to a woman or
woman’s property. This is the etymological sense but the word has a technical
meaning given in law.

Mitakshara defines that ‘stridhan’ means woman’s property. In the entire history of
Hindu Law, woman’s right to hold and dispose of property has been recognized.
The Dayabhaga School doesn’t recognize gifts of immovable property by husband as
stridhan.

Under all the schools of Hindu Law payments made to a Hindu female in lump sum or
periodically for her maintenance and all the arrears of such maintenance constitute
stridhan. Similarly, all movable or immovable properties transferred to her by way of
an absolute gift in lieu of maintenance constitute her stridhan.

Kinds of Woman’s Property:

What is the character of property that is whether it is stridhan or woman’s estate,

depends on the source from which it has been obtained. They are:

 Gifts and bequests from relations- Such gifts may be made to woman during
maidenhood, coverture or widowhood by her parents and their relations or by
the husband and his relation. Such gifts may be inter vivos or by will. The
Dayabhaga School doesn’t recognize gifts of immovable property by husband
as stridhan.
 Gifts and bequests from non-relations- Property received by way of gift inter
vivos or under a will of strangers that is, other than relations, to a woman,
during maidenhood or widowhood constitutes her stridhan. The same is the
position of gifts given to a woman by strangers before the nuptial fire or at the
bridal procession. Property given to a woman by a gift inter vivos or
bequeathed to her by her strangers during coverture is stridhan according to
Bombay, Benaras and Madras schools.
 Property acquired by self exertion, science and arts-A woman may acquire
property at any stage of her life by her own self exertion such as by manual
labour, by employment, by singing, dancing etc., or by any mechanical art.
According to all schools of Hindu Law, the property thus acquired during
widowhood or maidenhood is her stridhan. But, the property thus acquired
during coverture does not constitute her stridhan according to Mithila and
Bengal Schools, but according to the rest of the schools it is stridhan. During
husband’s lifetime it is subject to his control.
 Property purchased with the income of stridhan- In all schools of Hindu
Law it is a well settled law that the properties purchased with stridhan or with
the savings of stridhan as well as all accumulations and savings of the income
of stridhan, constitute stridhan.
 Property purchased under a compromise- When a person acquires property
under a compromise; what estate he will take in it, depends upon the
compromise deed. In Hindu Law there is no presumption that a woman who
obtains property under a compromise takes it as a limited estate. Property
obtained by a woman under a compromise where under she gives up her rights,
will be her stridhan. When she obtains some property under a family
arrangement, whether she gets a stridhan or woman’s estate will depend upon
the terms of the family arrangement.
  Property obtained by adverse possession- Any property acquired by a
woman at any stage of her life by adverse possession is her stridhan.
 Property obtained in lieu of maintenance- Under all the schools of Hindu
Law payments made to a Hindu female in lump sum or periodically for her
maintenance and all the arrears of such maintenance constitute stridhan.
Similarly, all movable or immovable properties transferred to her by way of an
absolute gift in lieu of maintenance constitute her stridhan.
 Property received in inheritance- A Hindu female may inherit property from
a male or a female; from her parent’s side or from husband’s side. The
Mitakshara constituted all inherited property a stidhan, while the Privy Council
held such property as woman’s estate.
 Property obtained on partition- When a partition takes place except in
Madras, father’s wife mother and grandmother take a share in the joint family
property. In the Mitakshara jurisdiction, including Bombay and the Dayabhaga
School it is an established view that the share obtained on partition is not
stridhan but woman’s estate.

Stridhan has all the characteristics of absolute ownership of property. The stridhan
being her absolute property, the female has full rights of its alienation. This means that
she can sell, gift, mortgage, lease, and exchange her property. This is entirely true
when she is a maiden or a widow. Some restrictions were recognised on her power of
alienation, if she were a married woman.

For a married woman stridhan falls under two heads:

 The sauadayika (gifts of love and affection)- gifts received by a woman from
relations on both sides (parents and husband).

 The non-saudayika- all other types of stridhan such as gifts from stranger,
peoperty acquired by self-exertion or mechanical art.

Over the former she has full rights of disposal but over the latter she has no right of
alienation without the consent of her husband. The husband also had the power to use
it.
On her death all types of stridhan passed to her own heirs. In other words, she
constituted an independent stock of descent. In Janki v. Narayansami, the Privy
Council aptly observed, “her right is of the nature of right of property, her position is
that of the owner, her powers in that character are, however limited… So long as she
is alive, no one has vested interest in the succession.”

The Supreme Court has explained the meaning and nature of “Stridhan” in the case of
Rashmi Kumar vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997) 2 SCC- “The properties gifted to her
before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or
thereafter are her Stridhan properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to
dispose at her own pleasure. He has no control over her Stridhan property. Husband
may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to
resort the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, Stridhan property does not become
a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or
independent dominion over the property as owner thereof.”

Women’s Estate

The other type of property that could devolve upon the Hindu woman was called
woman’s estate. It was also called widow’s estate. A Hindu woman could be the
owner of woman’s Estate in the same way as any individual subject to two basic
limitations.
(a) She could not alienate the property and
(b) On her death, it devolved upon the next heir of the last full owner.

In other words, she had only ‘limited estate’ in respect of this kind of property. She
had full powers of possession, management and enjoyment of such property but she
had virtually no power of alienation or transfer. However she could alienate the
property in certain exceptional cases like (a) legal necessity i.e., for her own needs and
for the need of the dependents of the last full owner, (b) for the benefit of estate and
(c) for the discharge of indispensable religious duties such as marriage of daughters,
funeral rites of husband, his ‘Shradhha’ and alms to poor for the salvation of his soul.
In other words she could alienate the property for the spiritual benefit of the last full
owner but not for her own spiritual benefit.

Reversioners- On the death of the female owner the estate reverts to the heir or the
heirs of the last owner as if the latter died when the limited estate ceased. Such heirs
may be male or female known as reversioners. So long as the estate endures there are
no reversioners though there is property of the female devolves on the reversioners
when her estate terminates on her death, but it can terminate even during her lifetime
by surrender.

Right of Reversioners- the reversioners have a right to prevent the female owner
from using the property wastefully or alienating it improperly. It is this context that
the expression “presumptive reversioner” came into vogue. The reversioners have
the following three rights:
 They can sue the woman holder for an injunction to restrain waste.
 They can in a representative capacity sue for a declaration that alienation
made by the widow is null and void and will not be binding on them after
the death of the widow. However by such a declaration the property does
not revert to the woman nor do the reversioners become entitled to it. The
alienee can still retain the property so long as the widow is alive.
 They can after the death of the woman or after the termination of estate, if
earlier, file a suit for declaration that an alienation made by the widow was
improper and did not bind them. The Supreme Court observed that when a
Hindu female holder of woman’s estate improperly makes alienation, the
reversioners are not bound to institute a declaratory suit during the lifetime
 of the female holder. After the death of the woman, they can sue the alienee
for possession of the estate treating alienation as a nullity.
Powers of a Hindu Female over her Property:

a) Power of Management- like the Karta of a Hindu joint family she has full
power of management. The Karta is merely a co-owner of the joint family,
there being other coparceners, but she is the sole owner. She alone is entitled to
the possession of the entire estate and its income. Her power of spending the
income is absolute. She need not save and if she saves, it will be her stridhan.
She alone can sue on behalf of the estate and she alone can be sued in respect
of it. Any alienation made by her proper or improper is valid and binding so
long as she lives. She continues to be its owner until the forfeiture of estate by
her re-marriage, adoption, death or surrender.

b) Power of Alienation- She has limited powers of alienation, Like Karta her
powers are limited and she can alienate property only in exceptional cases. She
can alienate the property for the following:

 Legal necessity (that is, for her own need and for the need of the
dependants of the last owner)

 For the benefit of estate, and

 For the discharge of indispensable duties (such as marriage of daughters,

funeral rites of her husband, his shrada and gifts to brahmans for the
salvation of his soul; that is, she can alienate her estate for the spiritual
benefit of the last owner, but not for her own spiritual benefit.)

Under the first two heads her powers are more or less the same as that of the
Karta. Restrictions on her powers of alienation are an incident of the estate
and not for the benefit of the reversioners.
As to the power of alienation under the third head, a distinction is made
between the indispensable duties for which the entire property could be
alienated, and the pious and charitable purposes for which only small
portion of property can be alienated. She can make alienation for religious
acts, which are not essential or obligatory but are still pious observances
which conduce to the bliss of her deceased husbands soul.

c) Surrender- means renunciation of estate by the female owner. She has the
power of renouncing the estate in favour of the nearest reversioner. This means
that by a voluntary act she can accelerate the estate of the reversioner by
conveying absolutely the estate thereby destroying her own estate. This is an
act of self-effacement on her part and operates as her civil death. For a valid
surrender, the first condition is that it must be of the entire estate, though she
may retain a small portion of her maintenance. The second condition is that it
must be in favour of the nearest reversioner or reversioners, in case there are
 more than one of the same category. Surrender can be made in favour of female
reversioners also. The third condition is that the surrender must be bonafide
and not a device of dividing the estate with the reversioners.

Position after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

The preamble of the act signifies that it is an act to amend and codify the law relating
to intestate succession among Hindus. The Act aims to lay down an uniform law of
succession whereas attempt has been made to ensure equality of inheritance rights
between sons and daughters. It applies to all Hindus including Budhists, Jains and
Sikhs. It lays down an uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and applies
to those governed by the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools as well as other schools.
The Hindu Succession Act reformed the Hindu personal law and gave women greater
property rights, allowing her full ownership rights instead of limited rights in
property.

Conversion of women’s ‘Limited Estate’ into ‘Absolute Property’

The property rights of the Hindu women are highly fragmented on the basis of several
factors apart from those like religion and the geographical region. Property rights of
Hindu women also vary depending on the status of the woman in the family and her
marital status: whether the woman is a daughter, married or unmarried or deserted,
wife or widow or mother. It also depends on the kind of property one is looking at:
whether the property is hereditary/ ancestral or self-acquired, land or dwelling house
or matrimonial property. Prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ‘Shastric’ and
customary laws that varied from region to region governed the Hindus.

Under the old Hindu law among all the properties that the women was in possession
of, only her ‘stridhan’ was absolute property and in other inherited properties she was
entitled to only a life-estate with limited powers of alienation, if any and this position
further continued under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act,1937. However
the framers of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 intended to make major changes in the
area of the nature of the women’s estate and this is reflected in S.14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956.

The section has the effect of:

 Firstly, removing any disability in either statutory or customary law with

respect to power of alienation, title etc with respect to women’s property after
the enactment of the Act.

 Secondly the enactment retrospectively acts and converts any right, which the
women might have had in any estate, and converts her into an absolute owner.

 Thirdly the action of the section is on both immovable and immovable

property.
  Fourthly, the mode of acquisition of a right in the property (except in case of a
gifts/wills etc that specifically creates a restricted estate) is not relevant for the
operation of the section.

In this regard the reasoning of the judiciary is to be examined especially with respect
to how the courts have determined which properties held by the women would be
benefited by the section 14 and converted to absolute estates.

Section 14 applies only when a woman has title as well as de jure possession of the
property at the time of the commencement of the Act. The Courts have usually
interpreted the section, especially “…possessed…” liberally so as to give maximum
effect to the section and thereby benefit the widow.

For example, in Mangal Singh v. Smt. Rattno the nature of the right that a widow
possessed over some lands that were currently in actual possession of some collaterals
(of the deceased husband) was to be determined. The court drew attention to the fact
that section 14 of the Act spoke about “…any property possessed by a Hindu
female…” instead of “…any property in possession of a Hindu female….” The former
would refer to instances when there is ‘constructive possession’ while the latter would
refer to ‘actual possession’. The court took this to be a deliberate move on part of the
legislature and the widow was given absolute property rights over property in which
she had de jure possession despite lacking de facto possession.

The scope of the section has been tempered by decisions such

as Eramma v. Veerupana where in 1936 after the death of a coparcener one among
three widows (before the final decree) occupied her husband’s property. It was held
that S.14 could not aid her because at the time she got possession she had no vestige
of ownership and had no position higher than a trespasser.

In general, however, landmark cases such as Jaganathan Pillai v. Kunjithapadam

Pillai have attempted to enlarge the property of the widow by following a liberal
interpretation of the section. The facts of the case were that a widow who had
transferred property prior to the commencement of the Act, the property having
limited ownership, came into possession of the same upon retransfer of the property.
After commencement of the Act the Supreme Court held that she becomes absolute
owner of the property. The judgement also contained significant judicial dicta, which
was quite favourable to the property rights of females in general.

Section 14 of The Hindu Succession Act 1956 has abolished certain women’s estate
and in respect of woman’s estates which are outside the purview of section 14, a
reversioner’s right under old Hindu Law still endures.

Section 14(1) has qualified retrospective application; it converts only those women’s
estates into full estates over which she has possession when the Act came into force. It
does not apply to those woman’s estates over which the Hindu female has no
possession when the Act came into force; in such a case old Hindu Law continues to
apply. Section 14(2) uses the words “any other instrument”. Applying the principle of
ejusdem generis, these words should be read along with the preceding words,
“acquired by way of gift or under a will” and would thus, mean the instruments under
which title to property has been conveyed to the Hindu female.

V.Tulsamma Vs Shesha Reddy [1977 AIR 1944, 1977 SCR (3) 261]

This case arose from the facts where, under a compromise in a suit for maintenance
filed by the appellant Tulasamma, against her deceased husband's brother, who was in
a state of jointness in the ownership of properties with her husband at the time of
husband's death, Tulasamma was allotted certain properties, but as per the written
terms, she was to enjoy only a limited interest in it with no power of alienation at all.
According to the terms of the compromise the properties were to revert to the brother
after the death of Tulsamma. Subsequently Tulasamma continued to remain in
possession of the properties even after coming into force of the HAS and after the
HSA was enacted Tulsamma alienated her shares to someone else. The alienation was
challenged by the husband's brother on the ground that she had got a restricted estate
only under the terms of the compromise and her interest could not be enlarged into an
absolute interest by the provisions of the HSA in view of exception to Section 14 of
the Act. In declining the challenge by the brother, the Supreme Court upheld the
absolute right of Tulsamma. In fact the relevant observations in the judgment deserve
to be extracted:
“The Hindu female's right to maintenance is not an empty formality or an illusory
claim being conceded as a matter of grace and generosity, but is a tangible right
against property which flows from the spiritual relationship between the husband and
the wife and is recognized and enjoined by pure Shastric Hindu Law and has been
strongly stressed even by the earlier Hindu jurists starting from Yajnavalkya to Manu.
Such a right may not be a right to property but it is a right against property and the
husband has a personal obligation to maintain his wife and if he or the family has
property, the female has the legal right to be maintained there from. If a charge is
created for the maintenance of a female. The said right becomes a legally enforceable
one. At any rate, even without a charge the claim for maintenance is doubtless a pre-
existing right so that any transfer declaring or recognizing such a right does not confer
any new title but merely endorses or confirms the pre-existing rights.”

Observation- the right of widow to be maintained is of course not just in rem., it

doesn't give her any interest in Join Family Property (JFP), but it is certainly jus ad
rem, i.e. a right against JFP. Therefore, when specific property allotted to the widow
in ‘lieu of her claim for maintenance', the allotment would be in satisfaction of her jus
ad rem- the right to be maintained out of JFP. It would not be a grant for the first time,
without any pre-existing right in widow. The instrument giving the property is merely
a document effectuating a pre-existing right.
Thus J. Fazal Ali concluded, provisions of S. 14 must be liberally construed so as to
advance the object of the Act, which is to enlarge the limited interest of widow. S.
14(2) doesn't refer to any transfer which merely recognizes a pre-existing right). S. (2)
to S. 14 is merely a proviso to Ss. (1) of S. 14 and has to be interpreted as a proviso
and not in manner so as to destroy the effect of main provision. The explanation to
S.s. (1) has expanded the notion of ownership and includes all types of property. The
use of express terms like property acquired by a female at partition or in lieu of
maintenance or arrears of maintenance in explanation to S.s. (1) clearly makes S.s. (2)
inapplicable to these categories, which have been expressly excluded from operation
of S. s. (2). The Act of 1956 has made revolutionary changes in The Hindu society
and every attempt should be made to carry out the spirit of the Act, i.e. to emancipate
women in India. The court thus held that the widow is the absolute owner and the
restrictions mentioned in the decree to be ignored.

This principle has subsequently been reiterated and expanded in several later
decisions.

It is suggested to go through the class notes also.