Inheritance Under Sunni Law — Sharers, Residuaries, Distant Kindred

The Sunni law of inheritance, in its dominant Hanafi form, is one of the most architecturally precise systems of intestate succession known to Indian law. It is anchored in Muslim Law as a whole by Section 2 of the Shariat Application Act, 1937, which directs that questions of intestate succession among Muslims shall be decided according to Muslim personal law. The Hanafi system divides every potential heir into one of three classes — Sharers, Residuaries and Distant Kindred — and prescribes a sequenced rule for distributing the estate among them. The principal classical work is the Sirajiyyah of Shaikh Sirajuddin, with Sayyad Shariff's commentary the Sharifiyyah; the architecture they record was approved by Sir William Jones, by the Privy Council, and by every modern Indian appellate court.

The estate of a deceased Muslim devolves on his heirs at the moment of his death. Unlike Hindu law, birthright is not recognised: the right of an heir-apparent comes into existence for the first time on the death of the ancestor. The heirs succeed as tenants-in-common in specific shares; there is no joint tenancy, no representation, no doctrine of survivorship. A son of a predeceased son does not inherit alongside his living uncles. The position was settled by the Privy Council in Moola Cassim v. Moolla Abdul (1905) and has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court most recently in P.N. Veetil Narayani v. Pathummo Beevi and the Jharkhand High Court in Amar Ahmad Khan v. Shamim Ahmad Khan.

Statutory and shariah anchor

Section 2 of the Shariat Application Act, 1937, lists intestate succession among the matters governed by Muslim personal law. The administration of the estate — the order of payment of funeral expenses, debts and legacies before distribution — is governed by Sections 320 to 325 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which apply to Muslims. The pre-distribution order is: (1) funeral expenses and death-bed charges; (2) expenses of obtaining probate, letters of administration or succession certificate; (3) wages due for service rendered to the deceased within three months preceding death; (4) other debts of the deceased according to priority; and (5) legacies not exceeding one-third of what remains after the above payments. The bequeathable third is examined separately in Wills (Wasiyat). The widow's share interacts with her claim to unpaid mahr, which is a debt of the deceased husband's estate ranking before legacies.

Section 213(2) of the 1925 Act exempts Muslim wills from the requirement of probate; Section 212(2) likewise exempts heirs from the necessity of taking out letters of administration. The estate, however, vests in the executor under Section 211 even without probate. The deceased's sect at the time of death determines the applicable law: a Sunni's estate is distributed according to Sunni rules, a Shia's by Shia rules — the Privy Council fixed this in Hayat-un-Nissa v. Mahomed. A deceased Muslim is presumed Sunni; the burden lies on the person alleging Shia status to prove it. The general principles of Muslim law sources — Quran, Sunna, Ijma and Qiyas — supply the doctrinal grounding from which the Sirajiyyah's rules derive.

Three classes of heirs

The first analytical step in any Hanafi inheritance problem is classification. The Sirajiyyah recognises three classes:

1. Sharers (Ashab al-furud). Heirs entitled to a prescribed share of the inheritance fixed by the Quran. There are twelve such Sharers in classical enumeration.
2. Residuaries (Asabat). Heirs who take no prescribed share but succeed to the residue after the claims of the Sharers are satisfied. Residuaries are agnatic — related to the deceased through a male.
3. Distant Kindred (Dhawu'l-arham). All blood relations who are neither Sharers nor Residuaries — relations through a female, broadly speaking, who inherit only when no Sharer (other than spouse) and no Residuary survives.

The order of preference is strict. Sharers take first; the residue (if any) goes to the Residuaries; Distant Kindred succeed only when there is neither a Sharer (other than husband or wife) nor a Residuary. The single exception is the spouse: the husband or wife as Sharer takes the prescribed share, and Distant Kindred take the remainder when no Residuary survives. If a Mahomedan dies leaving a wife and Distant Kindred, the wife (Sharer) takes 1/4 and the rest goes to Distant Kindred.

The twelve Sharers and their Quranic shares

The twelve Sharers and the principal share of each (with the share modulated by the presence or absence of other heirs) are as follows. The fractions are drawn from Sura IV of the Quran (the verses of inheritance) and codified in the Sirajiyyah:

1. Husband: 1/4 if the deceased wife left a child or child of a son how-low-soever; otherwise 1/2.
2. Wife (one or more, sharing equally): 1/8 if the deceased husband left a child or child of a son how-low-soever; otherwise 1/4.
3. Father: 1/6 as Sharer when there is a child or child of a son how-low-soever. Where there is no such descendant, the father inherits as Residuary, taking the whole or the residue. Where there are only daughters or son's daughters (no sons), the father inherits both as Sharer and as Residuary — the unique double-capacity heir.
4. True grandfather (h.h.s.) — paternal grandfather and his ascendants: 1/6 in the same circumstances as the father, but excluded by the father.
5. Mother: 1/6 when there is a child or child of a son, or two or more brothers/sisters; 1/3 of the whole otherwise. Where the deceased leaves a husband and father (or wife and father), the mother takes 1/3 of the residue after the spouse's share — the so-called Umariyyatan rule, named after the case decided by Umar.
6. True grandmother (h.h.s.) — mother's mother and father's mother: 1/6, and the share is taken by all true grandmothers in equal shares; the father's mother is excluded by the father, but the mother's mother is not.
7. Daughter: 1/2 if there is one daughter and no son; 2/3 if there are two or more daughters and no son. Where there is a son, the daughter inherits as Residuary with him at the rule of double share to the male.
8. Son's daughter (h.l.s.): 1/2 if alone; 2/3 if two or more, in default of daughters and son's sons. Where there is one daughter and one son's daughter, the son's daughter takes 1/6 as Sharer, completing the 2/3 collective female share.
9. Full sister: 1/2 if alone; 2/3 if two or more — but only in default of son, son's son, daughter, son's daughter, father and true grandfather. With a full brother, she inherits as Residuary at half the male's share.
10. Consanguine sister: 1/2 if alone; 2/3 if two or more, in default of full sisters and other excluding heirs. One full sister and one consanguine sister: the consanguine sister takes 1/6, completing 2/3.
11. Uterine brother (one): 1/6.
12. Uterine sister (one): 1/6. Two or more uterine brothers and sisters together take 1/3 in equal shares without distinction of sex.

Six of the twelve Sharers — the father, the true grandfather, the daughter, the son's daughter, the full sister and the consanguine sister — also inherit in certain situations as Residuaries. The father and the true grandfather are unique in that they alone may inherit simultaneously as Sharer and Residuary; the four females shift entirely from Sharer to Residuary when paired with a parallel-grade male.

Residuaries — the agnatic heirs

If after assigning Sharers' shares any residue remains, it goes to the Residuaries. The Sirajiyyah classifies Residuaries into four classes: descendants of the deceased; ascendants of the deceased; descendants of the deceased's father (siblings and their descendants); and descendants of the deceased's true grandfather (uncles and their descendants). The order is strictly hierarchical — a nearer class entirely excludes a more remote class.

The Residuaries are further subdivided into three groups: (1) Residuaries in their own right — all males, including the son, son's son h.l.s., father, true grandfather, full brother, consanguine brother, full brother's son, consanguine brother's son, paternal uncles and their sons; (2) Residuaries in the right of another — four female Residuaries, namely the daughter (with the son), the son's daughter h.l.s. (with the son's son), the full sister (with the full brother), and the consanguine sister (with the consanguine brother); and (3) Residuaries with others — the full sister and consanguine sister when they inherit as Residuaries with daughters or son's daughters in the absence of parallel brothers.

The classical authorities are emphatic: agnates were the principal heirs in pre-Islamic Arabia; the Quran reformed this system by introducing fixed shares for near female relations and the spouses, but it left intact the agnatic principle as the residuary backbone. The Hadith of Ibn Abbas, recorded in Sahih-al-Bukhari, encapsulates the rule: "Give the faraid to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased." The Indian courts have adopted this two-step calculation as the operative procedure for every Hanafi succession problem.

Distant Kindred — the four classes

Distant Kindred are all blood relations who are neither Sharers nor Residuaries — broadly, the cognatic heirs related through a female intervening link. They are divided into four classes in the order of succession: (1) descendants of the deceased other than Sharers and Residuaries (daughter's children and their descendants; children of son's daughters); (2) ascendants of the deceased — false grandfathers (a male ancestor between whom and the deceased a female intervenes, e.g., mother's father) and false grandmothers; (3) descendants of parents — full and consanguine brothers' daughters and their descendants; full and consanguine sisters' children; and (4) descendants of immediate true or false grandparents — paternal uncles' daughters and maternal uncles and aunts and their descendants.

Within each class the rules of exclusion apply — first, the nearer in degree excludes the more remote; second, among claimants in the same degree, the children of Sharers and Residuaries are preferred to those of Distant Kindred. There is a notorious doctrinal divergence between Imam Muhammad and Abu Yusuf — the two principal disciples of Abu Hanifa — on the manner of distribution among Distant Kindred. Abu Yusuf would distribute per capita according to the sex of the actual claimants; Imam Muhammad would have regard to the sex and blood of the intermediate ancestors. Indian Hanafi courts follow the doctrine of Imam Muhammad, as recorded in the Sirajiyyah and approved by the Calcutta High Court.

Per capita distribution and no representation

Sunni inheritance is per capita, not per stirpes. Where the deceased leaves three son's daughters, two by one son and one by another son, the 2/3 collective share is divided into three equal parts of 2/9 each — not into two halves with one half subdivided. The reason is that there is no doctrine of representation: the son's daughters do not inherit as representing their respective fathers, but in their own right as grand-daughters of the deceased. The same principle applies to son's sons, brother's sons and uncles' sons. The classical illustration in the Sirajiyyah explains: a Mahomedan dies leaving a son C and a grandson D by a predeceased son B; the whole estate goes to C; D takes nothing.

The denial of representation has dramatic consequences. The orphan grandchild — son or daughter of a predeceased son — is excluded entirely while paternal uncles and aunts inherit. Modern statutory reform in some Muslim-majority jurisdictions has introduced a rule of obligatory bequest (al-wasiyya al-wajiba) to mitigate this; Indian law has not done so. The Indian framework leaves the orphan grandchild's protection to the will-making power of the grandparent, capped at one-third of the net estate.

Doctrine of Aul (Increase)

Aul (literally, increase) is the corrective doctrine the law applies when the sum of the Sharers' shares exceeds unity. Suppose the deceased leaves a husband and two full sisters: the husband is entitled to 1/2 (= 3/6) and the two full sisters to 2/3 (= 4/6); total = 7/6, which exceeds unity. The doctrine of Aul reduces each share proportionately by increasing the denominator from 6 to 7 — the husband takes 3/7 and the sisters together take 4/7. The denominator is increased by an amount equal to the surplus of numerators. This is the classical Sunni position recorded in the Sirajiyyah and accepted by every Indian Hanafi court.

Aul applies only where either the daughters' class (daughters or son's daughters) or the sisters' class (full or consanguine sisters) is among the surviving heirs. In their absence, no anomaly can ever arise — the shares of spouses, parents, true grandparents and uterine siblings can never together exceed unity. The Shia school rejects Aul entirely, distributing the deficit instead by reducing only the share of the daughter (and certain other female heirs); the Shia rules of intestate succession diverge here in important respects. The full doctrinal framework of Aul and its companion Radd is set out separately in Doctrine of Aul (Increase) and Radd (Return).

Doctrine of Radd (Return)

Radd (literally, return) is the doctrine the law applies in the converse case — where, after assigning the Sharers' shares, a residue is left but there is no Residuary to take it. The residue reverts (returns) to the Sharers in proportion to their shares. The exception, fixed by classical authority and the Privy Council in Mahomed Arshad v. Sajida Banoo and Bafatun v. Bjilaiti Khanum: neither the husband nor the wife is entitled to the Return so long as there is any other heir, whether Sharer or Distant Kinsman. But if there be no other heir at all, the residue goes to the spouse by Return — the surplus does not escheat to the Crown.

An illustration sharpens the rule. A Muslim man dies leaving only a widow as his heir. The widow takes 1/4 as Sharer, and the remaining 3/4 by Return. Conversely, a Muslim man dies leaving a husband (1/2) and a mother (1/3); the residue 1/6 returns to the mother because the husband is not entitled to Return when other heirs survive. The mechanical formula in cases without spouse: reduce all the Sharers' shares to a common denominator and decrease that denominator to the sum of the numerators. Where two daughters and the father's mother and mother's mother survive, the original 1/6 + 1/6 + 4/6 = 6/6 — but if only one daughter survived alongside the two grandmothers, the original 1/6 + 1/6 + 3/6 would be reduced by Radd from 5/6 to 1.

Principles of exclusion

The Sirajiyyah enumerates four general principles of exclusion. First, whoever is related to the deceased through any person shall not inherit while that person is living: the father excludes brothers and sisters; the son excludes son's sons. Second, the nearer in degree excludes the more remote — the son's son excludes the son's son's son; the father's father excludes the father's father's father. Third, a person may exclude others wholly or partially even though himself excluded — the brother excluded by the father nevertheless reduces the mother's share from 1/3 to 1/6. Fourth, certain heirs are never excluded: the child, father, mother, husband and wife — together called the Primary Heirs — are entitled to some share of the inheritance in every case in which they survive the deceased.

The Substitutes — child of a son h.l.s., true grandfather h.h.s. and true grandmother h.h.s. — succeed only in the absence of the corresponding Primary Heir, with one exception: a daughter and a son's daughter both inherit, the son's daughter taking 1/6 to complete the collective 2/3.

Bars to inheritance

The classical Sunni grounds of disqualification are four: homicide, slavery, difference of religion and difference of allegiance. Slavery was abolished by Act V of 1843; the bar of difference of religion was removed by the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, which provides that no law or usage shall inflict on any person who renounces his religion any forfeiture of rights or property; the bar of difference of allegiance disappeared with the end of Mahomedan supremacy. Only homicide remains an active bar in India.

Under Sunni law, a person who has caused the death of another, whether intentionally or by mistake, negligence or accident, is debarred from succeeding to the estate of that other. Under Shia law, only intentional homicide bars succession. The bar operates personally — the homicide does not exclude his descendants. Thus where A is killed by his son B, B is excluded but B's son C is not; if C is otherwise the nearest residuary heir, he succeeds in B's place. A single Lahore decision suggested that public policy might exclude the murderer's descendants too, but the Sirajiyyah's narrow rule remains the orthodox position.

Spes successionis — no transfer of expectancy

The chance of a Mahomedan heir-apparent succeeding to an estate cannot be the subject of a valid transfer or release. The position is identical to that under Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which makes a chance of succession non-transferable. A daughter who in her father's lifetime takes Rs. 1,000 from him in consideration of releasing her right to inherit cannot be precluded from claiming her share after his death — the release is void. The Allahabad and Travancore-Cochin High Courts have, however, applied a doctrine of estoppel where the release was part of a family settlement and the heir benefited by the transaction; this view was approved by the Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyam Ali, settling a long-running conflict with the Madras and Kerala High Courts.

Liability for debts of the deceased

Each heir is liable for the debts of the deceased only to the extent of a share of the debts proportionate to his share of the estate. Where a Mahomedan owing Rs. 3,200 dies leaving a widow (1/8), a son (7/16) and two daughters (each 7/32), the creditor cannot recover the whole debt from any single heir; the widow is liable for Rs. 400, the son for Rs. 1,400, and so on. The Allahabad rule, ultimately approved by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sulaiman v. Mohd. Ismail, is that a decree against some only of the heirs binds them but not the absent heirs — except where the estate has been fully represented after diligent and bona fide enquiry, in which case the decree binds the entire estate.

Two co-related propositions follow. First, an heir may transfer his share before payment of debts, and the transferee takes a good title against creditors of the deceased — a creditor cannot follow the estate into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value. The Privy Council in Bazayet Hossein v. Dooli Chund settled this. Second, one heir, even if in possession of the whole estate, has no power to alienate the shares of his co-heirs — not even to discharge the debts of the deceased; the position closely tracks the rule against alienation by a de facto guardian dealt with in guardianship of minors (wilayat). The Madras Full Bench rule in Abdul Majeeth v. Krishnamachariar was approved by the Privy Council and remains the settled position.

Tenants-in-common, no joint family

The estate vests in the heirs as tenants-in-common in specific shares immediately on the death of the deceased. There is no joint family in the Hindu sense; there is no presumption that acquisitions by members living and messing together are for the benefit of the family. The Madras High Court in Sahul Hamid v. Sulthan was emphatic: Mahomedan law does not recognise a joint family as a legal entity. The shares are definite and specific, and a single heir may sue for partition of one of the properties without seeking partition of all. The position is set out in the chapter on the application of Muslim personal law in India as one of the points on which Muslim and Hindu personal law sharply diverge.

Worked example — distribution at the door of the law

A Sunni Muslim dies leaving a widow, a son and two daughters. The first step is to identify Sharers, Residuaries and Distant Kindred — the same triage that governs every landmark inheritance dispute. The widow is a Sharer; the son is a Residuary; the daughters, paired with the son, are Residuaries with him at the rule of double share to the male. The widow's share is 1/8 (because there is a child). The residue is 7/8 and is divided among the son and daughters as Residuaries: the son counts as two units and each daughter as one, giving a total of four units. The son takes 2/4 of 7/8 = 7/16; each daughter takes 1/4 of 7/8 = 7/32. The total: 1/8 + 7/16 + 7/32 + 7/32 = 4/32 + 14/32 + 7/32 + 7/32 = 32/32 = 1. The estate is exhausted.

A second example tests Aul. A Muslim dies leaving a husband, two full sisters and a mother. Husband 1/2; full sisters 2/3; mother 1/6. Reducing to common denominator 6: 3/6 + 4/6 + 1/6 = 8/6. Doctrine of Aul: increase the denominator to 8. Husband 3/8; sisters 4/8 (2/8 each); mother 1/8. Total = 1. The principle is mechanical once the doctrine is applied; the trap lies in identifying the Sharers correctly in the first place — the chapter on Aul and Radd contains a step-by-step worked guide.

Special situations

The mother's reduced share — the Umariyyatan

Where the deceased leaves a husband and a father (or a wife and a father), the mother takes 1/3 of the residue after the spouse's share, not 1/3 of the whole. The classical reasoning — recorded in the Sirajiyyah — is to maintain the rule of double share to the male: if the mother were given 1/3 of the whole in such a case, the father (as Residuary) would receive less than the mother, inverting the male/female 2:1 ratio. The reduction does not apply where the deceased leaves a husband and the father's father (in place of the father), because the father's father's interest does not engage the same balance.

Posthumous child

A child in the womb of its mother at the time of the deceased's death is treated as a person in being for purposes of inheritance, provided it is born alive. The mother's iddat (waiting period) following the husband's death — examined in Iddat — Concept, Period, Effects — is one practical context in which the posthumous-child rule operates. The shares of the other heirs are calculated tentatively, with provision made for the unborn child; the final distribution awaits its birth. The relevance of paternity to the calculation makes this section an immediate companion to legitimacy and acknowledgment of paternity.

Hermaphrodite and missing person

The classical authorities cover the hermaphrodite (khuntha) and the missing person (mafqud al-khabar) — the share of a person of indeterminate sex is the smaller of the two possible shares; the missing person's share is held in suspense until the date on which he is presumed dead, after which his share devolves on his heirs at that date. These are corner-cases but appear in advanced exam papers.

Different schools — implications for the Indian deceased

Where the parties are governed by Hanafi law, the Hanafi rules of Sharers, Residuaries and Distant Kindred apply in full. Where the deceased was Shia, the Shia inheritance rules — which do not recognise the agnatic Residuary class in the Sunni form, and which place much greater weight on the per-stirpes principle — apply instead. The chapter on Schools of Muslim Law sets out the school divisions; the substantive Shia rules of inheritance are treated in Inheritance Under Shia Law.

Doctrinal points often examined

Three points recur in judiciary papers and require precise statement. First, no representation: the predeceased son's children are excluded by living uncles and aunts. Second, the widow's share never escheats: by Radd, the residue returns to her where she is the sole heir, and the property does not pass to the State as bona vacantia — settled by the Privy Council in Mahomed Arshad v. Sajida Banoo. Third, the moment of vesting: the estate vests in the heirs at the moment of death, and is unaffected by debts being due from the deceased — debts are recovered, but vesting is not delayed.

For the broader procedural framework — the order of payment of funeral expenses, debts and legacies; the position of the executor (wasi) and the administrator under the Indian Succession Act, 1925; the recovery of debts due to the deceased through court — the chapter on Wasiyat (Wills) deals with the bequeathable third and ought to be read as the immediate companion to this chapter.

Frequently asked questions

What are the three classes of heirs under Sunni Muslim law?

The three classes are: (1) Sharers (Ashab al-furud) — heirs entitled to a prescribed share of the inheritance fixed by the Quran, twelve in number; (2) Residuaries (Asabat) — agnatic heirs who take the residue after the Sharers' shares are paid; and (3) Distant Kindred (Dhawu'l-arham) — blood relations who are neither Sharers nor Residuaries, broadly the cognatic heirs. The order is strict: Sharers take first, then Residuaries, and Distant Kindred succeed only when there is neither a Sharer (other than husband or wife) nor a Residuary. Where only the spouse and Distant Kindred survive, the spouse takes the prescribed share and Distant Kindred take the rest.

What is the doctrine of Aul (Increase) under Sunni law?

Aul is the corrective doctrine applied where the sum of the Sharers' shares exceeds unity. Where, for example, a deceased leaves a husband (1/2 = 3/6) and two full sisters (2/3 = 4/6), the total is 7/6 — exceeding unity. Aul reduces each share proportionately by increasing the denominator from 6 to 7: the husband takes 3/7 and the sisters take 4/7. The denominator is increased to equal the sum of the numerators. Aul applies only where either the daughters' class (daughters or son's daughters) or the sisters' class (full or consanguine sisters) is among the heirs. The Shia school rejects Aul, distributing the deficit by reducing only certain female heirs' shares.

What is the doctrine of Radd (Return) under Sunni law?

Radd is the converse doctrine, applied where after paying the Sharers' shares a residue remains but no Residuary survives. The residue returns to the Sharers in proportion to their shares. The exception, fixed by the Privy Council in Mahomed Arshad v. Sajida Banoo, is that neither the husband nor the wife is entitled to the Return as long as any other heir survives. But if the spouse is the sole heir, the residue does go to the spouse by Return — the property does not escheat to the Crown. Where a Muslim man dies leaving only a widow, the widow takes 1/4 as Sharer and the remaining 3/4 by Return.

Why is there no representation in Sunni inheritance?

Sunni law does not recognise the doctrine of representation. The right of an heir-apparent comes into existence for the first time on the death of the ancestor — birthright is not recognised. As the Privy Council held in Moola Cassim v. Moolla Abdul (1905), if a man's son predeceases him leaving a grandson, the grandson is excluded by living uncles and aunts; the grandfather's estate passes to the surviving children, and the orphan grandchild takes nothing. The classical Sirajiyyah rule that 'the nearest of blood must take' bars representation. Reform statutes in some Muslim-majority countries have introduced an obligatory bequest in favour of orphan grandchildren; India has not done so.

Who are Distant Kindred under Sunni law?

Distant Kindred (Dhawu'l-arham) are blood relations of the deceased who are neither Sharers nor Residuaries — broadly, the cognatic heirs related through a female. The Sirajiyyah divides them into four classes: (1) descendants of the deceased other than Sharers and Residuaries (daughter's children and their descendants); (2) ascendants — false grandfathers (e.g., mother's father) and false grandmothers; (3) descendants of parents — full and consanguine brothers' daughters and full and consanguine sisters' children; and (4) descendants of immediate true or false grandparents — paternal uncles' daughters and maternal uncles and aunts. Distant Kindred succeed only when no Sharer (other than spouse) and no Residuary survives.

How does a person disqualify himself from succession by homicide?

Under Sunni (Hanafi) law, a person who has caused the death of another — whether intentionally, by mistake, by negligence or by accident — is debarred from succeeding to the estate of that other. Under Shia law the bar is narrower: only intentional homicide disqualifies. The bar operates personally; it does not exclude the homicide's descendants. Where A is killed by his son B, B is excluded but B's son C may inherit if he is otherwise entitled. The estate is divided as if B were dead. Lahore once suggested that public policy might extend the bar to descendants, but the Sirajiyyah's narrower rule remains the orthodox position followed by the Indian courts.

Can a Muslim heir transfer his expectancy of inheritance during the lifetime of the ancestor?

No. The chance of a Muslim heir-apparent succeeding to an estate cannot be the subject of a valid transfer or release — the position aligns with Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which prohibits transfer of a chance of succession. A daughter who in her father's lifetime executes a release of her right to inherit in consideration of money is not bound by it; she may claim her share after his death. The Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyam Ali approved the Allahabad view that the heir may, however, be estopped from setting up the right where the release was part of a family settlement and the heir benefited by the transaction.