Children inherit immediate pain, sorrow, dejection, a sudden shift from comfortable dependency to uncomfortable dependency, and confused independence when parents die. Property, which includes cash, gold, jewellery, shares, securities, established businesses, houses, buildings, flats, land, businesses, factories, industries, and other interests inherited from parents, is the second category.

First, sorrow and pain fade into memories and yearly shraddha ceremonies, but second, inheritances create rights for the bereaved, and previously happy-go-lucky family members fight among themselves, sometimes for control over inherited property and businesses while living in a joint family, or they separate immediately and establish their own families and claim shares. Material inher itance causes conflicts and disputes for bereaved family members.
The complex Hindu Succession Act of 1956 defines who inherits what when someone succeeds or inherits a person’s property. Female children did not inherit an equal share of their parents’ or ancestors’ property until recently. Children born from void or voidable marriages were not given a share of their biological parents’ property until the Supreme Court (SC) ruled that they can inherit their parents’ joint Hindu family property under the Mitakshara Law. It stressed that these children would not inherit other family members’ property.

Following the cases of Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy, 2022, and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, 2020, daughters now have an equal share of their parents’ property.

The latest example for preferring a mediation for a court’s judgement is of the case of the siblings of famous industrialist Baba Kalyani. Petitioners Sameer Hiremath and Pallavi Swadi – children of Sugandha Hiremath, younger sister of the industrialist – on 22 July 2024  filed a mediation proposal before the court of joint civil judge senior division, S S Shinde citing that they are quite disturbed by the family dispute-related mudslinging in court.
The Hiremaths had filed a suit seeking division of the Kalyani family assets to claim their share of the Kalyani Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) assets, which include Bharat Forge and listed and privately-held companies.

In Revanasiddappa vs. Mallikarjun (2011), a two-judge bench ruled that children from void or voidable marriages can inherit their parents’ property, whether self-acquired or ancestral. The case involved Section 16(3) of the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act, amended. This decision established inheritance rights for such children.

The Supreme Court ruled in June 2022 that live-in partners’ children are legitimate in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Another vs. Valsan & Others. This requires a long-term, not ‘walk in, walk out’ relationship. Though I cannot name individuals for privacy reasons, these decisions have fuelled opposing views.

The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 allows testamentary or intestate succession of a deceased Hindu family member’s share under Mitakshara law. This amendment extended inheritance beyond survivorship, giving women and men equal succession rights.

Two types of cases return to court: A legal heir certificate lets the claimant approach banks and investors to reclaim their moveable property or shares. Explaining legal heir classes 1, 2, and 3 is difficult. Legal heirs use a certificate if the property owner died intestate, without a will. A good document simplifies family disputes.

Second, the property succession occurs when the original owner or ancestors die without a will. According to national judicial data grid statistics, more than 78 per cent of the 10993516 civil cases pending in Indian courts are about inheritance, succession, ancestral property shares, refusing to share property with female siblings, legitimacy of children from void and voidable marriages, and property percentages.

Families of repute and respect fight a cold war over who inherits ancestral property for a variety of reasons, including family ties, reputation, joint family responsibilities, societal recognition, and other traits they associate with themselves to maintain their social status. A few people fight for a small share of a two-bedroom flat on the streets. If they knock on court doors for their property share, they appear to be washing their dirty laundry in public.

In larger families, where the property to be inherited is very valuable and there is confusion and competing interests over the right share, a court is the only option. Now there is an option. Families sit down and resolve their disputes without outside interference. Or they can use a neutral mediator to resolve their dispute without airing their differences and disputes.

To quote a Supreme Court case, the bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice P. B. Varale observed, “The case in hand was one of the most appropriate cases in which the Court should have attempted to resolve the dispute through alternate means, namely mediation and conciliation. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and Others, this Court held that disputes involving partition or division among family members, coparceners, or co-owners should typically be resolved through the Alternative Disputes Redressal (ADR) process. The courts must investigate these methods for amicable resolution of family disputes.”

In another case, the appellant, Mahendra Nath Soral, filed a suit for partition over the properties left by his late father, naming his two brothers and two sisters as defendants. However, in this appeal, the appellants are only disputing the partition proceedings regarding the roof rights of a plot in Kota. The Court noted that this case exemplifies the bitterness among the legal heirs of the late Rameshwar Nath Soral regarding the partition of his properties. While stating that it is ‘properties’ versus ‘proper ties’, ‘Short term gain’ vs. ‘Long term relations’, the Court observed, “One can either get a share in the properties that too by litigating or can maintain proper ties amongst the family members with little give and take and not going to the extent of minute details.”
Since we enacted the Mediation Act of 2023, we can not only reduce the burden on courts but also maintain our family relationships through dialogue and discussion among family members with the assistance of a qualified mediator.

(The writer is a former Senior International Advisor, United Nations Development Programme.)