When there is no will: who inherits

When a person dies without a will, the law that applies to them decides who inherits and in what shares. For Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs, and for others who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews, it is the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, with the exceptions set out below; for Christians, Parsis and Jews, Part V of the Indian Succession Act, 1925; for Muslims, Muslim personal law; and in Uttarakhand, for the people it covers, the Uniform Civil Code. A will lets you make these choices yourself, within the limits the law sets.

Which law applies

• Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 sets who inherits; the sections below explain it. It applies to Hindus by religion in any of its forms, including Virashaivas, Lingayats and followers of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj; to Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs by religion; and to anyone else who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that Hindu law would not have governed them if the Act had not been passed (section 2(1)). In the Act, "Hindu" includes all of them (section 2(3)), so every rule below applies to each.
• Children and converts. A child whose parents are both Hindus, Buddhists, Jains or Sikhs counts as one; so does a child with one such parent who is brought up as a member of that parent's tribe, community, group or family; and so does a person who converts or reconverts to one of these religions (Explanation to section 2(1)).
• The Indian Succession Act's rules for a death without a will do not apply to the property of a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain (Indian Succession Act, section 29).
• Christians, Jews and others. Part V of the Indian Succession Act, its part on succession without a will, applies to everyone else, subject to any other law in force (section 29). Chapter II of Part V covers everyone it applies to except Parsis (section 31). Chapter III covers Parsis (sections 50 to 56).
• Muslims. Where the parties are Muslims, Muslim personal law (Shariat) is the rule of decision, that is, the law the court applies, on succession without a will (Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, section 2).
• If you married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Succession to the property of a person married under that Act, and of the children of the marriage, is governed by the Indian Succession Act, despite that Act's limits for particular communities (Special Marriage Act, section 21). If both spouses are Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, section 21 does not apply (section 21A). See the note "Which law governs your will".
• Members of a Scheduled Tribe. The Hindu Succession Act does not apply to them unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification (section 2(2)), and the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand does not apply to them either (its section 2). See below.
• Uttarakhand. Since 27 January 2025, the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024 has its own order of heirs for the people it covers. See below.
• A will that covers only part of the property. Under Part V of the Indian Succession Act, a person is treated as dying intestate (without a will) for any property their will does not effectively dispose of (section 30).

Hindus: when a man dies without a will (Hindu Succession Act, sections 8 to 13 and the Schedule)

His property goes, in this order (section 8):

1. to the heirs in Class I of the Schedule to the Act;
2. if there are none, to the heirs in Class II;
3. if there are none, to his agnates;
4. if there are no agnates, to his cognates.

Agnates and cognates are two further groups of relatives, which the Act defines in section 3.

Class I (the Schedule): 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. 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; daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased son. "Pre-deceased" means having died before him. His father is not in Class I; he is the first entry in Class II.

Class I heirs inherit together, to the exclusion of every other heir (section 9). They divide the property like this (section 10):

• his widow, or all his widows together, take one share;
• each surviving son, each surviving daughter and his mother take one share each;
• the heirs in the branch of each son or daughter who died before him take one share between them;
• in the branch of a son who died before him, the son's widow (or widows together) and his surviving sons and daughters take equal portions, and the branch of each of that son's own sons who had died earlier takes the same portion; in the branch of a daughter who died before him, her surviving sons and daughters take equal portions.

For example, a man's separate property passed to his widow and his four daughters, and each took one-fifth (Darubai v. Kamalabai, Supreme Court, 2026).

Class II (the Schedule), in order: 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. An heir in an earlier entry is preferred to those in later entries (section 9), and the heirs in the same entry share equally (section 11). A brother or sister here does not include one by uterine blood, that is, with the same mother and a different father (Schedule, Explanation).

Agnates and cognates. Between two of them, the one with fewer or no degrees of ascent (generations up) is preferred; if that is equal, the one with fewer or no degrees of descent (generations down); if neither rule decides, they inherit together (section 12). Degrees are counted from the man who died, including him, one generation to a degree (section 13).

If no heir is left. If a Hindu leaves no heir qualified to inherit, the property passes to the Government, which takes it subject to all the obligations and liabilities an heir would have had (section 29). This applies only where there is no will: if a will is proved, the people it names inherit and section 29 does not apply (State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh, Supreme Court, 2025).

Hindus: daughters and joint family property (section 6; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, Supreme Court, 2020)

Some Hindu families hold property as a joint family governed by Mitakshara law, a school of Hindu law. A member who has a share in that joint family property by birth is called a coparcener.

• Since 9 September 2005, a coparcener's daughter is a coparcener by birth in her own right, in the same way as a son. She has the same rights in the joint family property as a son, and is subject to the same liabilities (section 6(1)). She can leave that property by will (section 6(2)).
• The Supreme Court has held that this applies to a daughter born before or after the 2005 amendment; that a daughter born earlier has these rights from 9 September 2005; and that her father need not have been alive on that date, because the right arises by birth (Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, Supreme Court, 2020).
• Whether these rights reach a daughter who had herself died before 9 September 2005, and so her children, is a question for an advocate.
• When a Hindu with an interest in Mitakshara joint family property dies after 9 September 2005, that interest passes under the will or under the Act, and not by survivorship (that is, it does not simply pass to the other coparceners). The joint property is treated as if it had been partitioned (divided) just before the death, and a daughter is allotted the same share as a son. The share of a son or daughter who died earlier goes to that person's surviving children, and the same rule applies one generation further down (section 6(3) and Explanation).
• Section 6 does not undo a transfer or other disposal of the property, including a partition or a will, made before 20 December 2004 (proviso to section 6(1)), or a partition effected before that date (section 6(5)). For section 6, a partition means one made by a deed registered under the Registration Act, 1908, or by a court decree (Explanation to section 6(5)). A plea of a partition made by word of mouth, resting on oral evidence alone, must be rejected; only in exceptional cases, where it is supported by public documents and the partition is proved as clearly as if a court decree had made it, may it be accepted (Vineeta Sharma). Section 6(5) does not stop a suit (a court case) being brought, and the person who relies on an earlier partition must prove it (B.S. Lalitha v. Bhuvanesh, Supreme Court, 2026).
• A child whom section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act treats as legitimate, though the parents' marriage was void or was annulled, is not a coparcener by birth. When such a parent, a coparcener in a Mitakshara family, dies after 9 September 2005 without a will, the child inherits, along with the parent's other heirs, a share of the parent's share as worked out under section 6(3). The child has rights in the property of the parents only (Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, Supreme Court, 2023).

Hindus: a woman's property (sections 14 to 16)

• She owns it fully. A Hindu woman holds any property she possesses, whether acquired before or after the Act came into force on 17 June 1956, as full owner and not as a limited owner. This includes property she inherited, received at a partition, received in place of maintenance (support), received as a gift, earned by her own skill or work, bought, or acquired in any other way (section 14(1) and Explanation). For example, a widow whose husband died in 1949 held his interest under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, subject to that Act's restrictions. The Court held that section 14(1) removed them and made her the absolute owner, and that on those facts no partition with her son was needed (Ganapati v. Prabhakar, Supreme Court, 2026).
• The exception. Section 14(1) does not apply to property she acquires by a gift, a will or another document, or by a court's decree, order or award, whose terms give her only a restricted estate, such as a right for her lifetime (section 14(2)). How the two sub-sections fit together is unsettled. In 2024 two judges of the Supreme Court asked for the question to be placed before a larger bench (Tej Bhan v. Ram Kishan, Supreme Court, 2024), and in February 2025 the case was directed to be listed before a Constitution Bench of five judges. We had found no decision by 21 October 2026. If a will or deed gives a woman property only for her lifetime, ask an advocate what that means for her.
• Who inherits from her. Her property goes, in this order (section 15(1)): (a) her sons and daughters, including the children of a son or daughter who died before her, and her husband; (b) her husband's heirs; (c) her mother and father; (d) her father's heirs; (e) her mother's heirs. An earlier group is preferred to a later one, and those in the same group take together (section 16, Rule 1). The children of a son or daughter who died before her take the share that parent would have taken (Rule 2). When her property goes to the heirs of her husband, father or mother, it goes as if it had been that person's own and that person had died intestate immediately after her (Rule 3).
• Property from her parents or her husband. If she leaves no son or daughter, and no child of a son or daughter who died before her, property she inherited from her father or mother goes to her father's heirs, and property she inherited from her husband or father-in-law goes to her husband's heirs (section 15(2)). The India Code text also prints an amendment made by Kerala, under which, in that State, property she inherited from a son who died before her goes to that son's heirs.
• A question before the Supreme Court. Whether section 15(1)(b), which sends her property to her husband's heirs before her own parents, is valid has not been decided. In 2025 the Supreme Court declined to decide it in a public interest petition and left the question open (Snidha Mehra v. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2025). A petition raising it was still pending, and in mediation, at the latest order we read, of 23 August 2026.
• Mediation first, in one situation. Where a Hindu woman's parents, or her father's or mother's heirs, seek her property and section 15(2) does not apply, the Court directed that the parties first try mediation (talks helped by a neutral mediator) before going to court, and that a settlement reached there be treated as a court decree (Snidha Mehra). How far that direction reaches other cases is a question for an advocate.
• A will lets her choose. In the same case, the Court appealed to all women, and particularly Hindu women whose property would go to their husband's heirs under section 15(1)(b), to make a will well in advance, preferably registered (Snidha Mehra). That was an appeal, not a new rule: registering a will is still optional (Registration Act, 1908, section 18(e); see the note "Registering or depositing a will"). Any Hindu may leave by will any property that can be disposed of that way (section 30).

Hindus: when several heirs inherit together (sections 19 and 22)

• Heirs who inherit together take per head, not by branch, unless the Act expressly provides otherwise, and as tenants-in-common, not as joint tenants (section 19). As tenants-in-common, each has a definite and separate share, and the property passes by succession, not by survivorship. The Court explained that when one of them later dies, that share goes to that heir's own heirs (Darubai v. Kamalabai, Supreme Court, 2026).
• Property inherited from a Hindu man under section 8 is the heir's own property, not joint family property. The question of a karta (the head who manages a joint family) ordinarily does not arise just because the property came from a paternal ancestor (Darubai).
• In that case a widow and her four step-daughters each took one-fifth. She could not sell part of the property as the family's karta; she could deal only with her own one-fifth share (Darubai).
• Where an interest in land, a building or a business of a person who died intestate passes to two or more Class I heirs, and one of them proposes to transfer their interest, the others have a preferential right to acquire it. If they cannot agree a price, the court fixes it on application, and among competing heirs the one offering the highest price is preferred (section 22).
• The Supreme Court upheld section 22 in 2026, in a case about inherited agricultural land in Haryana, and held that it applies to such land. The right is enforced through ordinary civil procedure and is to be asserted before the transfer is completed. Whether it can still be used after a sale to an outsider is complete was not decided (Mahinder v. Puran Singh, Supreme Court, 2026).

Members of a Scheduled Tribe (Hindu Succession Act, section 2(2))

• Nothing in the Hindu Succession Act applies to members of a Scheduled Tribe, as Article 366(25) of the Constitution defines them, unless the Central Government directs otherwise by notification in the Official Gazette (section 2(2)). The exclusion is for Scheduled Tribes, not Scheduled Castes.
• Tirith Kumar v. Daduram (Supreme Court, 2024). The Act cannot apply to members of a Scheduled Tribe. The family belonged to a notified Scheduled Tribe, and no notification ending that status was produced. The lower courts were wrong to apply Hindu law on finding the family "sufficiently hinduised". The ancestor had died in 1951, and the Court found no error in the High Court's use of the rule of "justice, equity and good conscience" in section 6 of the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875 to give his daughters and their successors a half share. The case arose in Chhattisgarh. The Court also repeated an earlier suggestion that the Central Government look into securing these rights for tribal women; that is a suggestion, not an order.
• Ram Charan v. Sukhram (Supreme Court, 2025). Because the Act did not apply, the question was the tribe's custom, and a custom has to be proved, not assumed. The lower courts were wrong to assume a custom excluding daughters and to expect the daughter's heirs to disprove it. In that case no custom either way was proved, and the Court held that denying the woman a share in her father's property would then breach her right to equality with her brothers (Article 14 of the Constitution). Applying the rule of justice, equity and good conscience in the same 1875 Act, together with Article 14, it held her heirs entitled to an equal share. The 1875 Act was repealed in 2018, but the repealing Act saves rights already accrued, and her right had accrued on her father's death. This case also arose in Chhattisgarh.
• Nawang v. Bahadur (Supreme Court, 2025). A High Court could not issue a general direction that daughters in its State's tribal areas inherit under the Hindu Succession Act rather than by custom, and the Supreme Court set that direction aside. The order did not decide which custom governed the family.
• For a member of a Scheduled Tribe, who inherits can turn on custom, where it is proved, and on the law in force where the family lives. Ask an advocate.

Christians, Jews and others (Indian Succession Act, Part V, Chapter II)

The property goes to the husband or wife, or to the relatives ("kindred"), in the order the Chapter sets (sections 31 and 32). The Chapter is written about a man who dies; section 35 gives a husband the same rights as a widow.

• Widow (section 33). If he leaves lineal descendants (children, grandchildren and so on down the line), his widow takes one-third and the lineal descendants two-thirds. If he leaves no lineal descendant but other relatives, she takes one-half and the relatives one-half. If he leaves no relative at all, she takes everything. Section 33A gives some widows with no lineal descendant a fixed sum from the estate first. It does not apply to the property of an Indian Christian, or in the other cases it lists. The Act defines an Indian Christian as a native of India of unmixed Asiatic descent who professes any form of Christianity (section 2(dd)).
• No widow (section 34). The property goes to the lineal descendants; if there are none, to the relatives; and if there is no relative at all, to the Government.
• Widower (section 35). A husband has the same rights in his wife's property, if she dies intestate, as a widow has in her husband's.
• Lineal descendants (sections 36 to 40). They share what remains after the widow's share. Surviving children share equally, if no descendant of a child who died earlier is living (section 37). If no child is living, the grandchildren share equally, if no remoter descendant through a deceased grandchild is living (section 38). If all those living are great-grandchildren or further down, the nearest in degree take (section 39). Where descendants are of different degrees, the estate is divided by branches: the descendants of one who died earlier take what that person would have taken (section 40).
• No lineal descendants (sections 41 to 48). After deducting any widow's share, a living father takes everything (section 42). If the father has died, the mother, brothers and sisters, and the children of brothers and sisters who died earlier inherit in the ways sections 43 to 47 set out. For example, if no child of a deceased brother or sister is living, the mother and each living brother and sister share equally (section 43); and with no brother, sister, nephew or niece, the mother takes everything (section 46). Failing all of these, the nearest relatives in degree share equally (section 48). Relatives on the father's side and on the mother's side count alike, and a child in the womb who is later born alive counts (section 27).
• Lifetime gifts are not counted (section 49). Money or property the person gave or settled on a child during life is not counted against that child's or descendant's share.
• Shakuntala v. Robert Anthony (Supreme Court, 2026), a case about a Christian family. Section 33 applies only where the person who died is a man, and only to his property: land he had bought in his two wives' names was their property, half each, and not his estate. When the first wife died before him leaving children, he took one-third of her half and her children two-thirds (sections 35 and 33). When the second wife died, her only son having died before her, the Court held that section 38 governs her half: with no surviving child, the grandchildren share equally. The Court also said that there is no joint family property here as under Hindu law: inherited property is held as tenants-in-common.

Parsis (Indian Succession Act, Part V, Chapter III)

• Spouse, children and parents (section 51). The widow or widower and each child take equal shares; with no spouse, the children share equally. If a parent is living as well as children, each parent takes half a child's share.
• A child who died earlier (sections 50 and 53). A son's widow and children take his share as if he had died just after the intestate, with a special rule where he left a widow but no lineal descendant; a daughter's share goes equally to her children; and remoter descendants are treated the same way. A descendant who died earlier leaving no spouse, no lineal descendant and no widow or widower of a lineal descendant is not counted.
• No lineal descendants (sections 54 to 56). A spouse, and the widows or widowers of lineal descendants, take set fractions; a spouse alone takes half (section 54). The rest goes to the relatives in Part I of Schedule II, in order; if there are none, it goes to the spouse and those widows or widowers in proportion to their shares (section 54(e)). If there is no spouse and no widow or widower of a lineal descendant, the relatives in Part II of Schedule II take everything, in order, starting with the parents (section 55). If no relative qualifies, the nearest in degree share equally (section 56).
• Remarriage and equal shares. The widow or widower of any relative who remarried in the intestate's lifetime takes nothing (section 50). Under section 54, men and women of the same degree take equal shares, and a 1991 amendment ended the rule in section 55 that gave each man twice a woman's share.

Muslims (Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937)

• Where the parties are Muslims, Muslim personal law (Shariat) is the rule of decision (the law the court applies) on succession without a will, and on the other matters the section lists, whatever any custom or usage to the contrary (section 2). Questions about agricultural land are an exception in the central text; a Kerala amendment leaves that exception out. The Act does not itself set out any shares.
• A Muslim married under the Special Marriage Act follows the Indian Succession Act rather than Muslim personal law (see the note "Which law governs your will").
• Zoharbee v. Imam Khan (Supreme Court, 2025). The Court treated as the estate of a deceased Muslim the property, movable and immovable, that the person left. Relying on Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law, it set out the order: expenses, debts and legacies (gifts under a valid will) are paid first; then the sharers (heirs whose shares are fixed) take their shares, and any remainder goes to the residuaries (heirs who take what is left). If there are no sharers, the residuaries take everything, and if there are neither, distant kindred take.
• Applying a table of shares under Sunni law, the Court said a wife is a sharer: she takes one-eighth where there is a child or a son's child, however far down, and one-quarter where there is none. The husband in that case had no children, so his widow took one-quarter. The judgment does not record which school of Muslim law the family followed (Zoharbee).
• Land he had agreed to sell, but whose sale deed was signed only after his death, was still his at death and part of his estate, because an agreement to sell does not by itself pass ownership of land. So the widow could sell only her own one-quarter share (Zoharbee).
• The Court also observed, though no will was in issue, that a Muslim's will is carried out first within Muslim-law limits: it cannot exceed one-third of the estate, and cannot ordinarily be made in favour of an heir without the other heirs' consent (Zoharbee).
• Our guide to Muslim wills is in preparation. Meanwhile, an advocate can advise on a family's shares.

Uttarakhand: the Uniform Civil Code

• Whom it covers. The Code extends to the whole State and also applies to residents of Uttarakhand living outside it (section 1). It came into force on 27 January 2025. It does not apply to members of a Scheduled Tribe, or to people and groups whose customary rights are protected under Part XXI of the Constitution; its section 2 makes no exception by religion. A resident is an Indian citizen who meets any one of these tests: eligible as a permanent resident under the State's notification; a permanent State Government employee; a Central Government employee posted in the State; resident in the State for at least one year; or a beneficiary of a State or Central scheme applicable in the State (section 3(1)(n)).
• What it displaces. For the matters it covers, any earlier law, custom or usage stops having effect in the State so far as it is inconsistent with the Code. Rights already accrued, and proceedings already begun, before it came into force are saved (section 390).
• The order of heirs (section 49). Class 1 heirs first, then Class 2 heirs, then other relatives, and if there is no heir at all, the Government, subject to the estate's obligations. The estate includes self-acquired property and ancestral, coparcenary or joint property (section 3(1)(e)). A child includes an adopted child, a child born outside marriage, and a child born through surrogacy or assisted reproduction (section 3(1)(a)).
• Class 1. The spouse or spouses, the children, certain relatives of children and grandchildren who died earlier, and the parents, limited to the relatives Schedule 2 lists (section 49, Explanation). They inherit together. Each surviving spouse takes one share and each surviving child one share; the branch of each child who died earlier takes one share between them, split equally within it; and the parents take one share together, or a sole surviving parent takes that share (section 51).
• Since 26 January 2026. Schedule 2 used to list a "widow" among Class 1 heirs. It now says "spouse", so a surviving husband is listed too: first by an ordinance promulgated on 26 January 2026, then by the Amendment Act of April 2026 (Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand (Amendment) Act, 2026, section 20).
• Class 2 and other relatives (sections 52 to 54). In order: brother and sister; their sons and daughters; father's father and mother; father's widow (step-mother) and brother's widow; father's brother and sister; mother's father and mother; mother's brother and sister. Those in the same entry share equally. After that, the relatives nearest in degree inherit, to the exclusion of remoter ones.
• General rules (sections 55 to 60). A child in the womb who is born alive inherits. If two people die together, the younger is presumed to have survived the elder until the contrary is proved. The widow or widower of a relative who died earlier, and who remarried in the intestate's lifetime, does not inherit. A person who commits or abets (helps to commit) murder is disqualified, and is treated as having died before the intestate. A disease, defect or deformity does not disqualify anyone.
• The Code also has its own rules for making a will: it is attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom signs in the presence of the person making it (sections 61 to 69).

Dealing with the property after the death

• A revenue entry is not ownership. Mutation, the change of name in the land revenue record, confers no right, title or interest. It is made for fiscal (revenue) purposes only (Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court, 2021; Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal, Supreme Court, 2025). An entry in the revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes title, and a civil court can still decide who owns the land (Jamnabai v. Vasudev, Supreme Court, 2026).
• A co-heir does not lose a share by a revenue entry. A later revenue entry in another person's name is not, by itself, enough to treat a co-heir's right as given up. The person who says a co-heir gave up a share must prove it. Possession by one co-owner is ordinarily possession for all, and one heir ousts (shuts out) another only by openly asserting that the property is theirs alone, with exclusive possession, to the other heir's knowledge (Jamnabai).
• Release deeds in a family. A release is a document by which a person gives up a share. The Supreme Court has said that a registered document carries a presumption that it was validly executed; in that case, those who attacked a registered release had to rebut the presumption, and did not. In a Mitakshara joint family, a coparcener's release of his interest for consideration (something given in exchange) takes effect at once. Where its execution is admitted, consideration is shown and later conduct confirms it, courts should not defeat a registered release by demanding further formalities (P. Anjanappa v. A.P. Nanjundappa, Supreme Court, 2025). In another case, the courts found that a vague, unregistered letter of consent did not prove that an heir had given up his share, and the Supreme Court upheld that finding without laying down that a release must be registered (Jamnabai). Our advice, not a rule of law: if heirs agree that some of them will give up their shares, have an advocate draft the document and advise on registration and stamp duty, and ask the registration office about the fee.
• Money owed to the person who died. A court will not order a debtor of the deceased to pay a person entitled by succession, and will not enforce the debt, unless that person produces probate (a court's grant on a will, made to the executor it names), letters of administration (another grant from a court), a succession certificate that names the debt, or one of a few older certificates (Indian Succession Act, section 214). A succession certificate is applied for to the District Judge (section 372). See the note "Probate and succession certificates after December 2025".
• Name every heir. A succession certificate obtained where material facts were suppressed or misstated is liable to be revoked (Indian Succession Act, section 383). In one case, a minor heir who was never made a party could not be expected to answer a public notice, and the succession certificate, granted in the heir's absence, was set aside (Deepesh Maheswari v. Renu Maheswari, Supreme Court, 2026). Our advice: name every heir, including any minor, when applying.
• Nominees. For shares and other securities, a nominee does not become the owner, and a nomination does not override the succession laws (Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, Supreme Court, 2023). See our note on nominations and your will.

How Waseeyat helps

• These rules apply when there is no will. A will lets you choose who receives your property, within the limits the law sets for you. Waseeyat asks your religion only to apply the right rules, and says why it asks. When you list what you own, it asks for the nominee on record for each asset, if there is one.
• Waseeyat's questions ask whether you changed religion, live abroad or own property outside India, and stop the guided will for any of these, offering the fixed-fee advocate review instead. If anything else mixes the rules for you, such as living in Uttarakhand or belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, ask for that review.
• Waseeyat's guided will for Muslims is not open yet. It opens after an empanelled advocate has reviewed it. Until then, Waseeyat offers the fixed-fee advocate review instead.
• Succession certificates and letters of administration are court proceedings. An empanelled advocate handles them for a fixed fee quoted before the work starts, and signs their own work. This service is not open yet.
• Waseeyat does not decide who inherits when a family disagrees. That is for the courts.

Sources

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act 30 of 1956), sections 2(2), 6, 8 to 16, 19, 22, 29, 30 and the Schedule. India Code consolidated text as on 1 June 2026, read 21 October 2026: https://indiacode.gov.in/server/api/core/bitstreams/08b1e3ba-8e9d-4022-8cb7-b0b2ac577f3e/content
• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act 30 of 1956), section 2 (application of the Act) and its Explanation. India Code consolidated text as on 1 June 2026, read 3 November 2026: https://indiacode.gov.in/act/3371dabc-b1ab-4bb1-874d-0411dd1c44bd
• The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Act 39 of 1925), Part V (sections 29 to 56), sections 2(dd), 27 and 383, and Schedule II. India Code consolidated text as on 19 June 2026, read 21 October 2026: https://indiacode.gov.in/act/3eeb6aec-1e1f-42d4-9673-c04d21829663 . Sections 214 and 372 as in the note "Probate and succession certificates after December 2025" (same consolidated text, read 9 October 2026).
• The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 (Act 26 of 1937), section 2. India Code text (no "as on" date printed; its latest footnote is to Act 34 of 2019), read 21 October 2026: https://indiacode.gov.in/act/9c388017-67da-411c-8469-06695d3a260e
• The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Act 43 of 1954), sections 21 and 21A. India Code consolidated text as on 15 April 2026, read 9 October 2026: https://indiacode.gov.in/act/64fe4c01-196d-42c8-9deb-4cae341f1699
• The Registration Act, 1908, section 18(e), as in the note "Registering or depositing a will" (India Code text, read 9 October 2026): https://indiacode.gov.in/act/0777df3b-bda8-468d-9a83-bf7383502384
• The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024 (Uttarakhand Act No. 3 of 2024), sections 1 to 3, 49 to 69 and 390, and Schedule 2. Uttarakhand Extraordinary Gazette of 12 March 2024 (English translation), read 21 October 2026 on the official portal: https://ucc.uk.gov.in/server/file/uploads/shared-files/ucc-acts-en-final.pdf . Commencement on 27 January 2025, by the notification signed that day: https://ucc.uk.gov.in/server/file/uploads/shared-files/ucc-rules-2025-en.pdf
• The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand (Amendment) Act, 2026 (Uttarakhand Act No. 2 of 2026), section 20. Uttarakhand Extraordinary Gazette of 7 April 2026, read 21 October 2026: https://ucc.uk.gov.in/api/media/file/ucc_amendment6.pdf ; and Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, section 20 (Gazette of 27 January 2026): https://ucc.uk.gov.in/api/media/file/UCC%20Amendment%202026-1.pdf
• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., Supreme Court of India, 11 August 2020 (no neutral citation printed; (2020) 9 SCC 1), read 21 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/67965481/
• Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors., Supreme Court of India, 1 September 2023, 2023 INSC 783, read 21 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/30241407/
• B.S. Lalitha and Others v. Bhuvanesh and Others, Supreme Court of India, 15 May 2026, 2026 INSC 499, read 21 October 2026 in a court copy, and on Indian Kanoon on 3 November 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/104792382/
• Ganapati (Dead) by His LRs v. Prabhakar & Others, Supreme Court of India, 22 September 2026, 2026 INSC 1033, read 21 October 2026 in a court copy, and on Indian Kanoon on 3 November 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163301724/
• Tej Bhan (D) Through LR. & Ors. v. Ram Kishan (D) Through LRs. & Ors., Supreme Court of India, order of 9 December 2024, 2024 INSC 945, read 21 October 2026: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/35761/35761_2013_13_1501_57855_Judgement_09-Dec-2024.pdf ; record of proceedings of 12 February 2025: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8768248/
• Snidha Mehra v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 732 of 2020, Supreme Court of India, order of 19 November 2025 (no neutral citation printed), read 21 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/180285266/
• Kamal Anant Khopkar v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1517 of 2018, and the connected petitions on section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act (including W.P.(C) No. 27 of 2023, and T.P.(C) No. 457 of 2022, Manju Narayan Nathan v. Union of India), Supreme Court of India, records of proceedings of 6 November 2024, 15 July 2026 and 23 August 2026 (no neutral citation printed), read 21 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187174383/ ; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92979715/ ; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113296942/
• Darubai & Anr. v. Kamalabai & Ors., Supreme Court of India, 1 June 2026, 2026 INSC 613, read 21 October 2026 in a court copy, and on Indian Kanoon on 3 November 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58573810/
• Mahinder & Others v. Puran Singh, Supreme Court of India, 14 July 2026, 2026 INSC 698, read 21 October 2026 in a court copy, and on Indian Kanoon on 3 November 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161159949/
• State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Others, SLP (C) Nos. 14721-14723 of 2024, Supreme Court of India, order of 1 September 2025 (no neutral citation printed), read 21 October 2026: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/45720/45720_2023_5_301_63852_Order_01-Sep-2025.pdf
• Tirith Kumar & Ors. v. Daduram & Ors., Supreme Court of India, 19 December 2024, 2024 INSC 1005, read 21 October 2026 in a court copy, and on Indian Kanoon on 3 November 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179507118/
• Ram Charan & Ors. v. Sukhram & Ors., Supreme Court of India, 17 July 2025, 2025 INSC 865, read 21 October 2026: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/3486/3486_2023_13_1501_62514_Judgement_17-Jul-2025.pdf
• Nawang & Anr. v. Bahadur & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 2017, Supreme Court of India, order of 8 October 2025 (no neutral citation printed), read 21 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47089860/
• Shakuntala & Ors. v. Robert Anthony & Ors., Supreme Court of India, 30 July 2026, 2026 INSC 765, read 21 October 2026 in a court copy, and on Indian Kanoon on 3 November 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36099427/
• Zoharbee & Anr. v. Imam Khan (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors., Supreme Court of India, 16 October 2025, 2025 INSC 1245, read 21 October 2026 in a court copy, and on Indian Kanoon on 3 November 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51193808/ ; record of proceedings of 16 October 2025: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/13302/13302_2012_11_1501_65059_Order_16-Oct-2025.pdf
• Jitendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., SLP (C) No. 13146 of 2021, Supreme Court of India, order of 6 September 2021 (no neutral citation printed), read 21 October 2026: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/17825/17825_2021_43_17_29827_Order_06-Sep-2021.pdf
• Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr., Supreme Court of India, 19 December 2025, 2025 INSC 1485, read 21 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134495605/
• Jamnabai and Others v. Vasudev and Others, Supreme Court of India, 20 August 2026, 2026 INSC 900, read 21 October 2026 in a court copy, and on Indian Kanoon on 3 November 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199854851/
• P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors., Supreme Court of India, 6 November 2025, 2025 INSC 1286, read 21 October 2026: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2006/4352/4352_2006_3_1502_65412_Judgement_06-Nov-2025.pdf
• Deepesh Maheswari and Anr. v. Renu Maheswari and Ors., Supreme Court of India, 1 April 2026, 2026 INSC 306, read 21 October 2026: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/3873/3873_2020_11_1501_69631_Judgement_01-Apr-2026.pdf
• Shakti Yezdani & Anr. v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors., Supreme Court of India, 14 December 2023, 2023 INSC 1076, read 21 October 2026: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/3101/3101_2017_7_1501_49073_Judgement_14-Dec-2023.pdf

General information about Indian law, not legal advice. Waseeyat is not a law firm.