The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 decides who inherits the property of a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh who dies without a valid will. Its long title describes it as “An Act to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus”. It sets out one list of heirs for a man and another for a woman, makes a woman the full owner of her property, and, since the amendment of 2005, makes a daughter a coparcener in the joint family property by birth, exactly like a son. This guide gives students and families the Act’s salient features in plain English: who it applies to, the Class I and Class II heirs with a chart, how shares are worked out, the 2005 amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in Vineeta Sharma, succession to a woman’s property, wills, and who cannot inherit.
Hindu Succession Act at a glance
- Act: the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act 30 of 1956), as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005), in force from 9 September 2005.
- Applies to: Hindus (including Virashaivas, Lingayats and followers of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj), Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, and anyone who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew unless shown not to be governed by Hindu law; not to Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs (Section 2).
- A man’s property: goes first to the Class I heirs together (sixteen relatives, including son, daughter, widow and mother), then to Class II heirs entry by entry, then to agnates, then to cognates (Section 8).
- Daughters: since 2005 a daughter is a coparcener by birth “in the same manner as the son”; the father need not have been alive on 9 September 2005 (Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, 2020).
- A woman’s property: she holds it “as full owner” (Section 14) and it passes under Sections 15 and 16, first to her children (and children of a pre-deceased child) and husband.
- Wills: any Hindu may dispose of property by will, including his or her interest in coparcenary property (Section 30).
- No heir at all: the property goes to the Government (Section 29).
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date.
What succession means and what the Act covers
Succession is the passing of a dead person’s property to others. It happens in one of two ways. If the person left a valid will, the property passes by testamentary succession, under the will. If there is no will, or the will does not deal with some property, the person “dies intestate” as to that property, and the law decides who takes it. The Act defines “intestate” in exactly these terms: a person “is deemed to die intestate in respect of property of which he or she has not made a testamentary disposition capable of taking effect”. The Hindu Succession Act is mainly about intestate succession; for wills it points to the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 30, discussed below).
Section 4 gives the Act overriding effect. Any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law, or any custom or usage, in force before the Act “shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act”, and any other law inconsistent with it ceases to apply to Hindus. Before 2005, Section 4(2) saved State laws on the fragmentation and ceiling of agricultural holdings and on the devolution of tenancy rights; the 2005 amendment omitted that sub-section.
Who the Act applies to (Section 2)
Section 2(1) applies the Act to three groups: any person who is a Hindu by religion “in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj”; any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion; and “any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion”, unless it is proved that such a person would not have been governed by Hindu law or custom on these matters. The Explanation adds that a child, legitimate or illegitimate, both of whose parents are Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas or Sikhs is covered; so is a child one of whose parents belongs to one of these religions and who is brought up as a member of that parent’s community; and so is a convert or reconvert to any of these religions.
Two groups are outside the Act. Section 2(2) says that nothing in the Act applies to members of a Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Article 366(25) of the Constitution “unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs”; tribal succession is therefore governed by custom unless such a notification exists. And Section 5 excludes certain property, of which the one that matters in practice is property whose succession is regulated by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 because of Section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The other two exclusions concern estates of former Indian rulers that descend to a single heir, and a particular estate of the former Cochin royal family.
Salient features of the Act
For students preparing notes, these are the features the Act is known for. It replaced the older schools of Hindu law with one written list of heirs for the whole country. It treats sons and daughters alike among the Class I heirs and gives a widow and a mother a full share of their own. It makes a woman the absolute owner of the property she holds, ending the old “limited estate” of a Hindu widow. Since 2005 it makes a daughter a coparcener by birth in a Mitakshara joint family, and it replaced survivorship with succession for a coparcener’s interest. Heirs take as tenants-in-common, each with a separate share, and per capita unless the Act provides otherwise. Disqualifications are few: a murderer cannot inherit from his victim, and children born after a conversion out of Hinduism, and their descendants, cannot inherit from Hindu relatives unless they are Hindus when the succession opens; disease, defect or deformity disqualify no one. And any Hindu may make a will, including of a share in joint family property.
Key terms used in the Act (Section 3)
The Class II list and the rules for distant relatives use a few technical words. An “agnate” is a person related to another “by blood or adoption wholly through males”; a “cognate” is related “by blood or adoption but not wholly through males”. Two persons are related by “full blood” when they descend from a common ancestor by the same wife, by “half blood” when they descend from a common ancestor but by different wives, and by “uterine blood” when they descend from a common ancestress but by different husbands. An “heir” is “any person, male or female, who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under this Act”.
Two phrases in the Schedule often confuse readers. A “pre-deceased son” or “pre-deceased daughter” is a son or daughter who died before the person whose property is being divided; so “daughter of a pre-deceased son” is a granddaughter through a son who is no longer alive. And “father’s widow” in Class II is a widow of the father other than the intestate’s own mother, since the mother is already a Class I heir: in everyday language, a step-mother.
Succession to a Hindu man: the order of heirs (Sections 8 and 9)
Section 8 sets the order for the property of a male Hindu dying intestate: “firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.”
Section 9 explains how the two classes work. The Class I heirs “shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs”: if even one Class I heir is alive, nobody in Class II takes anything. Class II works entry by entry: “those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession.” So a father (entry I) excludes brothers and sisters (entry II), and a brother excludes a nephew (entry IV). Within one entry, the heirs share equally (Section 11). Among agnates or cognates, Sections 12 and 13 prefer the one with fewer degrees of ascent and then fewer degrees of descent, each generation counting as one degree.
- I. Father
- II. Son’s daughter’s son; son’s daughter’s daughter; brother; sister
- III. Daughter’s son’s son; daughter’s son’s daughter; daughter’s daughter’s son; daughter’s daughter’s daughter
- IV. Brother’s son; sister’s son; brother’s daughter; 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
The order of succession to a Hindu male under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
How the shares are worked out among Class I heirs (Section 10)
Section 10 has four rules. Rule 1: “The intestate’s widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together, shall take one share.” Rule 2: “The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share.” Rule 3: “The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share.” Rule 4 divides a branch’s share: in the branch of a pre-deceased son, his widow (or widows together) and his surviving sons and daughters get equal portions, and the branch of any of his own pre-deceased sons gets the same portion; in the branch of a pre-deceased daughter, her surviving sons and daughters get equal portions.
An example shows how this works. Suppose a man dies without a will leaving his widow, his mother, one son, one daughter, and the widow and two children of another son who died before him. There are five shares: one for the widow, one for the mother, one for the son, one for the daughter and one for the branch of the pre-deceased son. Each of the first four takes one-fifth. The branch’s one-fifth is divided equally between the pre-deceased son’s widow and his two children, so each of them takes one-fifteenth. A father does not appear here at all: he is a Class II heir and takes only if there is no Class I heir.
Under Section 19, two or more heirs take “per capita and not per stirpes” save as the Act otherwise provides, and “as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants”. Each heir therefore owns a defined share that he or she can sell, gift or leave by will, subject to the preferential right described below.
Joint family property and the 2005 amendment (Section 6)
The Act distinguishes a person’s own property from the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, in which a coparcener’s right arises by birth. Under the Act as originally enacted, daughters were not coparceners. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Bill put the purpose plainly: “It is proposed to remove the discrimination as contained in section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by giving equal rights to daughters in the Hindu Mitakshara coparcenary property as the sons have.” It added that the proposals were based on the Law Commission of India’s 174th Report.
The substituted Section 6(1) now provides that, from the commencement of the 2005 amendment, in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall “(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son”. The proviso protects any “disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004”; the Supreme Court has explained that 20 December 2004 was the date on which the Bill was presented in the Rajya Sabha. Section 6(5) says the section does not apply to a partition effected before that date, and the Explanation limits “partition” to a partition by a registered deed of partition or by a decree of a court.
Section 6(3) changed what happens when a coparcener dies after 9 September 2005. His interest “shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship”. The coparcenary property is deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place, the daughter being allotted the same share as a son, and the shares of a pre-deceased son or daughter going to their surviving children. Section 6(4) abolished the old “pious obligation” under which a son, grandson or great-grandson could be made to pay his father’s or grandfather’s debts, while saving the rights of creditors for debts contracted before the 2005 amendment.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): the daughter’s right settled
After 2005 the courts disagreed on whether a daughter’s right depended on her father being alive on 9 September 2005. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court settled the question in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, decided on 11 August 2020. Its answers to the reference include these:
“The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after the amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.” “The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9-9-2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.” “Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9-9-2005.”
The Court also held that, even where a preliminary decree for partition had already been passed, daughters must be given a share equal to a son’s in pending proceedings for a final decree or in an appeal. On the defence of an earlier oral partition, often raised to defeat a daughter’s claim, it said that “a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition”, and that only in exceptional cases, where the plea is supported by public documents and the partition is finally evinced as if effected by a decree, may it be accepted; “A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted”. It overruled the contrary views in Prakash v. Phulavati and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju, partly overruled Danamma v. Amar, and asked that pending cases be decided, as far as possible, within six months.
A Hindu woman’s property and who inherits it (Sections 14 to 16)
Section 14(1) says: “Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.” The Explanation defines property widely: property acquired by inheritance or devise, at a partition, in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, by gift from any person “whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage”, by her own skill or exertion, by purchase or prescription, “or in any other manner whatsoever”, and her stridhana. Section 14(2) makes one exception: property acquired by gift, will, other instrument, decree or award whose terms “prescribe a restricted estate in such property” remains subject to those terms.
When a Hindu woman dies without a will, Section 15(1) sends her property “firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; thirdly, upon the mother and father; fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.” Under Section 16, heirs in an earlier entry exclude those in a later one, those in the same entry take together, and the children of a pre-deceased son or daughter take between them the share their parent would have taken.
Section 15(2) makes two important exceptions where the woman leaves no son or daughter (and no children of a pre-deceased son or daughter). Property she “inherited … from her father or mother” goes not to her husband or his heirs but “upon the heirs of the father”; property she “inherited … from her husband or from her father-in-law” goes “upon the heirs of the husband”. So if a married woman inherited a house from her father and dies without children or a will, the house returns to her father’s heirs; if she inherited it from her husband, it goes to her husband’s heirs. Property she bought or earned herself follows the ordinary order in Section 15(1).
General rules and the preferential right (Sections 19 to 22)
A child who was in the womb when the intestate died and is later born alive inherits as if born before the death (Section 20). Where two persons die in circumstances that make it uncertain who survived the other, “it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the younger survived the elder” (Section 21).
Section 22 gives Class I heirs a preferential right that matters in family disputes. Where an interest in immovable property of an intestate, or in a business carried on by him or her, devolves on two or more Class I heirs, “and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred.” If they cannot agree on the price, the court fixes it on application, and if several heirs want to buy, the one offering the highest consideration is preferred.
Who cannot inherit, and what changed in 2005
Section 25: “A person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder.” Section 26: where a Hindu has ceased or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion, children born to him or her after the conversion, and their descendants, are disqualified from inheriting from their Hindu relatives “unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens”. The convert himself or herself is not disqualified by this section. A disqualified person is treated as if he or she had died before the intestate (Section 27). And Section 28 closes the list: “No person shall be disqualified from succeeding to any property on the ground of any disease, defect or deformity, or save as provided in this Act, on any other ground whatsoever.”
Two disabilities in the original Act were removed in 2005. Section 23 used to say that where male and female Class I heirs survived and the property included a family dwelling-house, a female heir could not claim partition of the house “until the male heirs choose to divide their respective shares therein”, though she had a right of residence. Section 24 used to bar the widow of a pre-deceased son, of a pre-deceased son’s son, or of a brother from inheriting as such widow if she had remarried by the date the succession opened. The 2005 amendment omitted both sections.
Finally, Section 29: “If an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government; and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.” This is often called escheat.
Wills: testamentary succession (Section 30)
Section 30 says: “Any Hindu may dispose of by will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so disposed of by him or by her, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus.” Its Explanation provides that the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property, and the interest of a member of a tarwad, tavazhi, illom, kutumba or kavaru in its property, is deemed to be property that can be disposed of by will. Since 2005 the words “by him or by her” make it clear that women stand on the same footing, and Section 6(2) adds that a daughter’s coparcenary property can be disposed of by her by will.
A valid will therefore displaces the intestate scheme for the property it covers; property the will does not deal with still passes under the Act. Our guide to making a will in India explains how a will is made, attested and proved.
Hindu Succession Act and Indian Succession Act: the difference
The two are often mixed up, and searches for an “Indian Succession Act 1956” usually mean the Hindu Succession Act. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs intestate succession among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is a separate, older statute; the Hindu Succession Act refers to it in two places. A Hindu’s will is made “in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925” (Section 30), and property whose succession is regulated by the 1925 Act because of Section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is outside the Hindu Succession Act (Section 5).
After a death: practical points for heirs in Delhi
The Act tells you who the heirs are and what share each takes; banks, housing societies and land records still need proof. In Delhi, heirs are often asked for a Surviving Member Certificate issued by the Revenue Department before accounts are released or a transfer is recorded. Where heirs disagree about a share in ancestral property, our guide on claiming a share in ancestral property explains the partition route. And where a family member claims title by long possession instead of inheritance, see our explanation of adverse possession. State amendments to the Act, where any exist, are outside the scope of this guide.
हिंदू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, 1956 – हिंदी में सारांश
हिंदू उत्तराधिकार अधिनियम, 1956 यह तय करता है कि किसी हिंदू, बौद्ध, जैन या सिख की मृत्यु बिना वसीयत के होने पर उसकी संपत्ति किसे मिलेगी। यह अधिनियम अनुसूचित जनजातियों पर तब तक लागू नहीं होता जब तक केंद्र सरकार अधिसूचना द्वारा ऐसा निर्देश न दे (धारा 2(2))। पुरुष की संपत्ति पहले वर्ग I के सभी वारिसों को एक साथ मिलती है – पुत्र, पुत्री, विधवा, माता तथा पूर्व-मृत पुत्र या पुत्री की संतान आदि (कुल 16 वारिस, जिनमें चार 2005 में जोड़े गए); वर्ग I में कोई न हो तो वर्ग II की प्रविष्टियाँ क्रम से – पहले पिता, फिर पुत्र की पुत्री का पुत्र, भाई, बहन आदि; उसके बाद गोत्रज (agnates) और फिर बंधु (cognates); और कोई वारिस न हो तो संपत्ति सरकार को जाती है (धारा 29)।
धारा 10 के अनुसार विधवा (या सभी विधवाएँ मिलकर) एक हिस्सा लेती है, हर जीवित पुत्र, पुत्री और माता एक-एक हिस्सा लेते हैं, और पूर्व-मृत पुत्र या पुत्री की शाखा मिलकर एक हिस्सा लेती है। 2005 के संशोधन (9 सितंबर 2005 से लागू) के बाद मिताक्षरा संयुक्त परिवार में पुत्री जन्म से ही पुत्र की तरह सहदायिक (coparcener) है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने विनीता शर्मा बनाम राकेश शर्मा (11 अगस्त 2020) में कहा कि इसके लिए पिता का 9 सितंबर 2005 को जीवित होना आवश्यक नहीं है, और केवल मौखिक बँटवारे की दलील स्वीकार नहीं की जा सकती। 20 दिसंबर 2004 से पहले हुए पंजीकृत बँटवारे या न्यायालय की डिक्री से हुए बँटवारे सुरक्षित हैं।
हिंदू महिला अपनी संपत्ति की पूर्ण स्वामी है (धारा 14)। उसकी बिना वसीयत मृत्यु पर संपत्ति पहले उसके पुत्र-पुत्रियों (और पूर्व-मृत संतान की संतान) और पति को, फिर पति के वारिसों को, फिर माता-पिता को जाती है (धारा 15)। पर यदि कोई संतान न हो, तो माता-पिता से विरासत में मिली संपत्ति पिता के वारिसों को और पति या ससुर से मिली संपत्ति पति के वारिसों को जाती है। हत्यारा अपने शिकार की संपत्ति का वारिस नहीं हो सकता (धारा 25); बीमारी या विकलांगता से कोई अयोग्य नहीं होता (धारा 28); और 2005 से पुनर्विवाहित विधवाओं पर लगी रोक (धारा 24) हटा दी गई है। कोई भी हिंदू वसीयत द्वारा अपनी संपत्ति, संयुक्त परिवार की संपत्ति में अपने हिस्से सहित, दे सकता है (धारा 30)।
Frequently asked questions
It is the law that decides who inherits the property of a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh who dies without a valid will. Its long title calls it “An Act to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus”. It was substantially amended in 2005, with effect from 9 September 2005.
Under Section 2, to Hindus (including Virashaivas, Lingayats and followers of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj), Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, and to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew unless it is proved that he or she would not have been governed by Hindu law. It does not apply to members of Scheduled Tribes unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification.
One uniform list of heirs; Class I heirs, including sons, daughters, widow and mother, inherit together and equally under Section 10; a woman is the full owner of her property (Section 14); since 2005 a daughter is a coparcener by birth like a son (Section 6); heirs take as tenants-in-common (Section 19); only a few disqualifications (murder, and descendants of a convert); and any Hindu may make a will, including of a share in joint family property (Section 30).
Sixteen relatives: son; daughter; widow; mother; son and daughter of a pre-deceased son; son and daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son, daughter and widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; and, added in 2005, son and daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter, and daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son.
Nine entries, which take one after another only if there is no Class I heir: I father; II son’s daughter’s son, son’s daughter’s daughter, brother, sister; III the four great-grandchildren through a daughter; IV brother’s son, sister’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter; V father’s father and mother; VI father’s widow and brother’s widow; VII father’s brother and sister; VIII mother’s father and mother; IX mother’s brother and sister.
Under Section 10, the widow (or all widows together) takes one share; each surviving son, daughter and the mother takes one share; and the branch of each pre-deceased son or daughter takes one share between them, divided equally within the branch. All Class I heirs take together and exclude Class II heirs.
Yes. Since the 2005 amendment, Section 6 makes the daughter of a coparcener in a Mitakshara joint family a coparcener by birth “in her own right in the same manner as the son”, with the same rights and liabilities. Partitions and dispositions made before 20 December 2004 are protected.
No. In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (11 August 2020) the Supreme Court held: “Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9-9-2005.” It overruled the contrary view in Prakash v. Phulavati.
Yes. A daughter is a Class I heir to her father’s property whether or not she is married, and Section 6 makes the daughter of a coparcener a coparcener by birth without any distinction between married and unmarried daughters.
Under Section 15, first her sons and daughters (including children of a pre-deceased son or daughter) and her husband; then the husband’s heirs; then her mother and father; then the father’s heirs; and lastly the mother’s heirs. If she leaves no children, property she inherited from her parents goes to her father’s heirs, and property she inherited from her husband or father-in-law goes to her husband’s heirs.
A Hindu can make a will of his or her own interest. Section 30 allows any Hindu to dispose of property by will, and its Explanation treats a male Hindu’s interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property as property he can dispose of by will; since 2005 a daughter can likewise dispose of her coparcenary property by will (Section 6(2)).
A person who commits or abets murder cannot inherit the victim’s property (Section 25), and children born to a convert after the conversion, and their descendants, cannot inherit from Hindu relatives unless they are Hindus when the succession opens (Section 26). No one is disqualified by disease, defect or deformity (Section 28). The bar on remarried widows in the old Section 24 was removed in 2005.
When immovable property or a business of the intestate passes to two or more Class I heirs and one of them proposes to transfer his or her interest, the other Class I heirs have a preferential right to acquire it. If they cannot agree on the price, the court fixes it.
Under Section 29, the property devolves on the Government, which takes it subject to all the obligations and liabilities an heir would have had.
No. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 governs intestate succession among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is a separate law; a Hindu’s will is made in accordance with it (Section 30 of the 1956 Act), and property governed by it because of Section 21 of the Special Marriage Act is outside the 1956 Act (Section 5).
Conclusion
The Hindu Succession Act turned a patchwork of schools and customs into a single list of heirs, and the 2005 amendment finished the job of equality by making daughters coparceners and removing the disabilities on women in the old Sections 23 and 24. For a family dealing with a death, the practical sequence is simple: check whether there is a valid will; if not, identify the Class I heirs (or, failing them, the Class II heirs entry by entry); work out the shares under Section 10; and for joint family property apply Section 6 as explained in Vineeta Sharma.
Sources used for this post: the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as published in the Gazette of India of 18 June 1956 (Sections 2 to 5, 8 to 30 and the Schedule); the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 39 of 2005), as republished in the Meghalaya Gazette; India Code’s record of the 1956 Act; and the Supreme Court of India’s own copies of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (11 August 2020), including the Statement of Objects and Reasons it quotes, the Court’s order of 5 September 2023 reproducing its conclusions, Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi (12 October 2011) for the commencement date, and Prakash v. Phulavati (16 October 2015).
