Devolution of property when a Hindu male dies intestate

1) Meaning #

• Intestate: a Hindu male dies without leaving a valid will.
• Devolution: the statutory transmission of his property to heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (“HSA”).

2) First identify the type of property (because the route differs) #

(A) Separate / self-acquired property #

Property owned by him in his individual capacity (earnings, purchases, gifts to him, etc.) devolves by succession under Sections 8–13.

(B) Interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property (HUF/coparcenary) #

Where he had an interest in coparcenary property, his “share” is first ascertained by assuming a deemed partition (notional partition) immediately before his death, and that share then devolves by succession to his heirs (typically under Section 8).

3) The statutory ladder of heirs (Section 8 + Schedule) #

Section 8 gives the order of succession for a male Hindu dying intestate:

1. Firstly: heirs in Class I of the Schedule
2. Secondly: heirs in Class II of the Schedule (only if no Class I heir exists)
3. Thirdly: agnates
4. Lastly: cognates

Section 9 clarifies priority:

• Class I heirs exclude everyone else.
• In Class II, Entry I excludes Entry II, Entry II excludes Entry III, and so on.

4) Who are Class I heirs? Where mentioned? How many? (Schedule) #

They are specifically listed in the Schedule under the heading “Heirs in Class I”.

Class I heirs (current list = 16 heirs) #

1. Son
2. Daughter
3. Widow
4. Mother
5. Son of a pre-deceased son
6. Daughter of a pre-deceased son
7. Son of a pre-deceased daughter
8. Daughter of a pre-deceased daughter
9. Widow of a pre-deceased son
10. Son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter (added in 2005)
11. Daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter (added in 2005)
12. Daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter (added in 2005)
13. Daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son (added in 2005)
14. Son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son
15. Daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son
16. Widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son

Amendment: Before 9-9-2005, Class I effectively had 12 heirs; the 2005 amendment inserted 4 more (items 10–13 above), expanding the representational line of predeceased daughters as well.

5) Who are Class II heirs? Where mentioned? How they inherit? #

Class II heirs are also listed in the Schedule, but arranged in Entries I to IX.

Class II entries (as per Schedule) #

• I: Father
• II: (1) Son’s daughter’s son, (2) Son’s daughter’s daughter, (3) Brother, (4) Sister
• III: (1) Daughter’s son’s son, (2) Daughter’s son’s daughter, (3) Daughter’s daughter’s son, (4) Daughter’s daughter’s daughter
• IV: (1) Brother’s son, (2) Sister’s son, (3) Brother’s daughter, (4) Sister’s daughter
• V: Father’s father; Father’s mother
• VI: Father’s widow; Brother’s widow
• VII: Father’s brother; Father’s sister
• VIII: Mother’s father; Mother’s mother
• IX: Mother’s brother; Mother’s sister

Distribution rule within Class II (Section 11 + Section 9) #

• If any heir exists in Entry I, only Entry I inherits (Entry II–IX are excluded).
• If Entry I is absent, go to Entry II; and so on.
• Within the same Entry, all heirs in that Entry share equally.

6) How Class I heirs take shares (Section 10 — the core “devolution” logic) #

When Class I exists, the property is divided as follows:

• Widow (or all widows together) take one share.
• Each surviving son takes one share.
• Each surviving daughter takes one share.
• Mother takes one share.
• The heirs of every predeceased son form a “branch” and together take one share (representation).
• The heirs of every predeceased daughter form a “branch” and together take one share (representation).

Class I is simultaneous succession, broadly equal shares, with representation (per stirpes) through branches of predeceased children.

7) Agnates and Cognates #

These come into play only if there is no Class I and no Class II heir.

Agnates (Section 3(1)(a)) #

A person is an agnate of another if they are related by blood or adoption wholly through males (i.e., the connecting links are all male).
Examples: father’s brother’s son; father’s father’s brother’s son.

Cognates (Section 3(1)(c)) #

A person is a cognate if related by blood or adoption but not wholly through males (i.e., there is at least one female link in the chain).
Examples: mother’s brother’s son (maternal uncle’s son); sister’s son.

Order among agnates/cognates (Sections 12–13) #

If you reach agnates/cognates, the Act ranks them by degrees of ascent and descent, and where neither is preferred, they take simultaneously.

8) “How devolution actually happens” #

1. List the estate (self-acquired + his computed share in coparcenary, if any).
2. Check Class I: if present → distribute by Section 10.
3. If no Class I → Class II: choose the earliest Entry available; divide equally within that Entry (Section 11).
4. If no Class I/II → go to agnates, then cognates, using Sections 12–13 ranking.

6) Important case laws #

(A) CWT v. Chander Sen (Supreme Court, 1986) #

Facts: A son inherited property when his father died intestate. Tax authorities treated it as HUF property in the son’s hands.
Issue: Does property inherited by a son on father’s intestate death devolve as HUF/coparcenary property or as the son’s separate property under the HSA?
Held: The Supreme Court held that, under the HSA scheme (particularly Section 8), the son takes the inherited property in his individual capacity, not as karta of his own HUF.

(B) Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (Supreme Court, 1987) #

Facts: Dispute involved whether property that came to the father from the grandfather remained “HUF/ancestral” so the son could claim a birth-based interest.
Issue: After the HSA, does property devolving under Section 8 become HUF property in the hands of the heir vis-à-vis his sons?
Held: The Court, relying on Chander Sen, observed that after the HSA, where succession is under Section 8, the heir takes in his individual capacity, and it is difficult to treat it as HUF property vis-à-vis his own sons.

(C) Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (Supreme Court, 2019) #

Facts: Suit over whether property continued as ancestral/coparcenary and whether alienation could be challenged on that basis.
Issue: What is the effect of succession opening after 1956 on the “ancestral” character of property?
Held (principle): The Court reiterated that once succession opens after the HSA and property devolves as per Section 8, the property does not remain coparcenary/ancestral in the hands of the heir in the traditional sense for birthright claims.

(D) Uttam v. Saubhag Singh (Supreme Court, 2016) #

Facts: A grandson claimed partition asserting an ancestral/coparcenary right, even though succession had already opened and inheritance had taken place.
Issue: After a coparcener’s death and devolution by succession, can the surviving members still treat the property as continuing coparcenary for a grandson’s birthright claim?
Held: The Court clarified the operation of notional partition/devolution, and emphasized that after devolution by succession under the Act, a fresh coparcenary does not automatically continue in the same manner, and claims must be tested strictly on the statutory scheme.

(E) Gurupad v. Hirabai (Supreme Court, 1978) — Notional partition must be given full effect #

Facts: On the death of a coparcener, the widow’s share had to be worked out under the then Section 6 (with notional partition). The dispute was about how to compute shares.
Issue: Is the notional partition only a narrow fiction to carve out the deceased’s share, or must it be carried to its logical consequences while calculating shares?
Held: The Court treated the statutory fiction seriously: assume partition immediately before death and then apply the intestate succession rules; the notional partition is to be given full effect for computing shares.

(F) Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (Supreme Court, 2020) — Daughter as coparcener (relevant where intestate includes coparcenary property) #

Facts: Dispute on whether daughters have coparcenary rights under amended Section 6, and whether the father must be alive on 9.9.2005.
Issue: Scope and timing of daughter’s coparcenary right under amended Section 6.
Held: Daughters are coparceners by birth with the same rights and liabilities as sons; the amendment is retroactive in the sense explained by the Court, and father need not be alive on the amendment date for the daughter to claim coparcenary rights (subject to statutory protections like prior partitions/dispositions).

7) Conclusion #

When a Hindu male dies intestate, the HSA follows a clear statutory ladder (Class I → Class II → agnates → cognates) under Section 8.
Where the estate includes coparcenary property, Section 6(3) mandates devolution by succession, not survivorship, and requires a deemed partition to compute the deceased’s share.
The Supreme Court has consistently reinforced that succession under Section 8 generally results in the heir taking the property in an individual capacity, not as HUF property vis-à-vis his own descendants (Chander Sen, Yudhishter, and later reaffirmations).