Sections 18-21 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Sections 18 to 21 open the "General provisions relating to succession" in Chapter II. They deal with four separate questions: whether full-blood relatives rank above half-blood relatives, how two or more heirs hold what they inherit, whether a child still in the womb at the death can inherit, and who is presumed to have survived when two people die together.
This article follows the consolidated text consulted (a third-party print; amendments shown up to Act 34 of 2019). Later amendments should be checked separately.
Section 18: heirs related by full blood are preferred to heirs related by half blood, if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other respect. Section 19: two or more heirs succeeding together take per capita and not per stirpes (save as otherwise expressly provided) and as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Section 20: a child in the womb at the death and later born alive has the same right to inherit, and the inheritance vests from the date of the death. Section 21: where it is uncertain who survived, it is presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the younger survived the elder.
Section 18: full blood preferred to half blood
Section 18 is headed "Full blood preferred to half blood". It reads: "Heirs related to an intestate by full blood shall be preferred to heirs related by half blood, if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other respect."
The terms come from section 3(1)(e). Two persons are related by full blood when they descend from a common ancestor by the same wife, and by half blood when they descend from a common ancestor but by different wives; see our article on section 3.
The preference has a condition: "if the nature of the relationship is the same in every other respect". The comparison is between two heirs who stand in the same kind of relationship to the intestate. For example, two brothers of the intestate: one by the same father and the same mother (full blood) and one by the same father and a different mother (half blood). If the relationship is otherwise the same, the full-blood brother is preferred to the half-blood brother. The names in this example are for the article only and the Act does not print any share.
If you are unsure how a family's relationships fit these terms, our legal consultation team can walk through the tree with you.
Section 19: per capita, and tenants-in-common
Section 19 is headed "Mode of succession of two or more heirs". It says: "If two or more heirs succeed together to the property of an intestate, they shall take the property,-"
- (a) "save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, per capita and not per stirpes; and"
- (b) "as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants."
Per capita and not per stirpes. The Act uses these words without defining them. "Per capita" counts heads: each heir takes a share as an individual. "Per stirpes" would group heirs by the branch they come from. The opening words, "save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act", matter because the Act does provide a branch rule in places. Section 10 (Rules 3 and 4) and section 16 (Rule 2), for example, give a pre-deceased child's share to that child's heirs. See our article on section 10.
An invented illustration: Class II entry II lists a son's daughter's son, a son's daughter's daughter, a brother and a sister. If an intestate leaves a brother, a sister and two such grandchildren, and nobody in an earlier entry, section 11 says they share equally, and section 19(a) says they take per capita: four heads, four equal shares, with no regard to the branch each person belongs to.
Tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Heirs who succeed together hold as tenants-in-common. The Act does not define either phrase, and nothing further is added here. For a post on co-ownership under another Act, see our guide on sections 45 to 47 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 on joint purchase and sale by co-owners, which is about that Act, not about section 19.
Section 20: right of child in womb
Section 20, "Right of child in womb", reads: "A child who was in the womb at the time of the death of an intestate and who is subsequently born alive shall have the same right to inherit to the intestate as if he or she had been born before the death of the intestate, and the inheritance shall be deemed to vest in such a case with effect from the date of the death of the intestate."
Three conditions and one result can be picked out.
| Element | Words in the section |
|---|---|
| Condition 1 | The child "was in the womb at the time of the death of an intestate" |
| Condition 2 | The child "is subsequently born alive" |
| Result 1 | "the same right to inherit to the intestate as if he or she had been born before the death" |
| Result 2 | The inheritance "shall be deemed to vest ... with effect from the date of the death of the intestate" |
The section is silent on how long a family must wait or how the share is held in the meantime. This article does not supply a rule the Act does not print.
Illustration (invented): Rajan Pillai dies intestate. His wife is expecting a child, and the child is born alive some months later. Under section 20 the child has the same right to inherit as if born before Rajan's death, and the inheritance is deemed to vest from the date of Rajan's death.
Section 21: simultaneous deaths
Section 21, "Presumption in cases of simultaneous deaths", says: "Where two persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain whether either of them, and if so which, survived the other, then, for all purposes affecting succession to property, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the younger survived the elder."
The presumption applies when the circumstances make it uncertain whether either survived the other, and if so which. It is a presumption "until the contrary is proved", so it gives way to proof. It is for "all purposes affecting succession to property".
Illustration (invented): Dilip Arora, aged 70, and his son Nitin, aged 40, die in the same accident and nothing shows who died first. For succession to property, the presumption is that the younger, Nitin, survived the elder, Dilip, unless the contrary is proved.
Need help with a shared inheritance?
Questions about shares, a child expected at the time of death or deaths in one accident are better settled with the family tree and dates in front of an adviser. You can speak to our team through legal consultation about these sections.
Key takeaways
- Full-blood heirs are preferred to half-blood heirs if the relationship is the same in every other respect (section 18).
- Heirs succeeding together take per capita and not per stirpes, save as otherwise expressly provided, and as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants (section 19).
- A child in the womb at the death and later born alive has the same right to inherit, and the inheritance is deemed to vest from the date of the death (section 20).
- Where it is uncertain who survived, the younger is presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have survived the elder (section 21).
Read next
- Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: distribution of property among Class I heirs
- Sections 11-13: Class II heirs, agnates, cognates and degrees
- Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: preferential right to acquire property
- Intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act: Class I and Class II heirs
Disclaimer: Based on a third-party consolidated print of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 showing amendments up to Act 34 of 2019 and on the text of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, as consulted on 2 October 2026. It explains the words of the statute only; State amendments, later amendments and the way courts apply these sections should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.