The Law relating to intestate succession among Hindus is codified under Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Act brought about changes in the Law of Succession among Hindus and gave rights which were till then unknown in relation to women’s property. Earlier landmark legislation was Hindu Womens’ Right to Property Act (XVIII of ) 1937, which conferred ownership rights on women. 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. Later, Hindu Womens’ Rights to Property (Extension to Agricultural Lands) Act, (Madras Act 26 of 1947 was enacted). The two enactments were considered in L.Bappu Ayyar Vs. Ranganayaki & others AIR 1955 Mad. 394 (DB). So also, the Hindu Inheritance (Removal of disabilities) has laid down that a lunatic or idiot by birth shall be excluded from Inheritance. The Act lays down the uniform and Comprehensive System of inheritance and applies, interalia, to persons governed by the Mithakshara and Dayabhaga Schools and also to those governed previously by the Murumakkattayam, Aliyasantana and Nambudri Laws. These enactments were changed by introducing Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 6 of the Act, deals with the devolution of interest of a male Hindu will coparcenary property and recognizes the rule of devolution by survivorship among the members of the coparcenary. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not retrospective in it’s operation, but Section 14(1) is one of exceptions to this and thereby absolute rights are conferred in property acquired by a female Hindu, even before the Act came into force. Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is amended on 27.05.1976 in respect of rights of the legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages. Apart from State Laws, regarding creation of coparcenary right to the daughters, the Hindu Succession Act is amended by introducing amendment Act, 39 of 2005.

• Property inherited from a paternal ancestor
• Property inherited from a maternal grand-father
• Property inherited from collaterals or from females
• Share allotted on partition
• Property obtained by gift or will from a paternal ancestor
• Accretions

• Property inherited from a paternal ancestor:
  Property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father, is ancestral property. The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the person inheriting such property acquire an interest in it by birth. Thus, the term ancestral property is confined to property descending to the father from his male ancestor in the male line, and it is only in that property that the sons (and now, the daughters) acquire an interest jointly with, and equal to that of, their father. Property inherited from other relatives would, therefore, not be ancestral property. For example: If X inherits property from his father’s father, it is ancestral property as regards his issues. If X has no son or daughter when he inherits such property, he holds the property as the absolute owner thereof, and he can deal with the property in any manner he may choose to. If, however, such a person comes into existence subsequently, he/she becomes entitled to an interest in such property by the mere fact of his/her birth, and X cannot claim to hold the property as an absolute owner; nor can he deal with it as he likes.
• Property inherited from a maternal grand-father:
  The principle of Hindu Law governing property inherited from a maternal grand-father is reflected in the following two decisions of the Privy Council. In Venkayyamma vs. Venkataramanyamma (1905 25 Mad. 678), where in this case, two brothers, who were living as a joint family, inherited some property from their material grand-father. When one of them died, leaving a widow, the question arose as to whether his share in the property passed to his widow by succession or to his brother by survivorship. The Privy Council held that the property which the brothers had inherited was joint property in their hands, and that the undivided interest of the deceased passed, on his death, to his brother by survivorship, and not to the widow. However, in a later decision Mohammad Hussain Khan vs. Babu Kishya Nandan Sahai, 1937 64 I.A. 250, the Privy Council reversed its earlier ruling, and held that such property is not ancestral property. The effect of this decision is that property inherited by a daughter’s son from his maternal grandfather is not ancestral property in his hands, but is his separate property
• Property inherited from collaterals or from females:
  The only property that can be called ancestral property is that which has been inherited by a person from his father, father’s father, or father’s father’s father. Therefore, property inherited by a person from his collaterals, such as brother, uncle, etc., or property inherited by him from a female, e.g., his mother, will be his separate property.
• Share allotted on a partition:
  The share obtained by a coparcener on a partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his issues. They take an interest in it by birth, whether they are in existence at the time of the partition or are born subsequently, as regards other relatives, however, such a share is separate property. So, if the coparcener dies without leaving any issue, it will pass to his heirs by succession.
• Property obtained by gift or will from a paternal ancestor:
  Where a Hindu makes a gift of his self-acquired or separate property to his son, or bequeaths it to him under a will, the question that arises is whether such property is the separate property of the son, or whether it is ancestral in his hands as regards his (his son’s) male issues. The Supreme Court has now expressed its view on this point in Arunachala Mudalier v. Muruganatha 1954 S.C.R. 243, where the Court observed, in that case, that it is not possible to hold that such property must necessarily and under all circumstances, rank as ancestral property in the hands of the donee (or legatee). Rather, it must be seen whether the donor intended that the donee should take it exclusively for himself or that the gift would be for the branch of the family. This decision of the Supreme Court thus makes it clear that there is no presumption either way; it is a question of fact in each case, to be decided after considering all the circumstances of the case.
• Accretions:
  Accumulations and accretions of income of ancestral property are ancestral property. In Ramanna v. Venkata, 1888 11 Mad. 246 held that, property purchased or acquired out of the income or with the assistance of ancestral property, would be ancestral property. In Lal Bahadur v. Kanhia Lal, 1907 29 All. 244 held that property purchased out of the sale proceeds of ancestral property or obtained in lieu of such property are ancestral property. It also be noted that children, grandchildren and great grandchildren acquire a vested interest, not only in the income and accretions of ancestral property which accrued after their birth, but also in that which accrued before their birth.

• To understand the conception of coparcenary it is necessary to note the distinction between ancestral and separate property. The property inherited by a Hindu from his father’s father and father’s is ancestral property. Property inherited by other relations is his separate property. The essential feature of ancestral property is that if that person inheriting it has sons, grandsons or great grandsons, they become joint owners with him. They become 10 entitled to it by reason of their birth. Father, son, son’s and son’s son together constitute coparcenary, because they have common ownership in the ancestral property. The conception of a joint Hindu family constituting a coparcenary is that of a common male ancestor with his lineal descendants in the male line four degrees counting from and inclusive of such ancestor. No coparcenary can commence without a common male ancestor, though after his death it may consist of collaterals, such as brothers, uncles and nephews, etc.
• A member of a joint family may be removed more than four degrees from the common ancestor and yet he may be a coparcener. If he can demand partition he is a member of coparcenary. Only those members of a joint family can demand partition that is within four degrees from the last holder of the property. A joint Hindu family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A Hindu coparcenary is on the other hand much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only whose persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint of coparcenary property. These are the sons, grandsons and great grandsons of the holder of joint property for the time being.
  A Hindu coparcenary under the Mithakshara School consists of males alone: it includes only those members who acquire by birth, or adoption interest in the coparcenary property. The essence of coparcenary property is unity of ownership which is vested in the whole body of coparceners. While it remains joint, no individual member canpredicate of the undivided property that he has a definite share therein. The interest of each coparcener is fluctuating, capable of being enlarged by deaths, and liable to be diminished by the birth of sons to coparceners: it is only on partition that the coparcener can claim that he has become entitled to a definite share. The two principal incidents of coparcenary property are: that the interest of coparceners devolves by survivorship and not by inheritance; and that the male issue of a coparcener acquires an interest in the coparcenary property by birth, not representing his father but in his own independent right acquired by birth.
  For the First time, the effect of 2005 amendment was discussed The Hon’ble apex court in GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA AIR 2012 SC 1693 held in a case where Son had filed suit against father and brothers and sisters. The father died in 1993. The Karnataka amendment came into force in 1994. The daughters married prior to amended act. They are claiming enhanced share under 2005 act and the same is granted by the apex court.