Uterine blood relationship

Two brothers may share a father. Or they may share a mother. Indian succession law does not treat those two cases alike.

Uterine blood is the second case. Two people are related by uterine blood when they are descendants from a common ancestress but by different husbands. In plain terms: the same mother, a different father.

Compare the other two. Full blood means the same father and the same mother. Half blood means the same father but a different mother.

Under the Hindu Succession Act that difference costs money. The Schedule of the Act excludes uterine brothers and sisters from inheritance as Class I or Class II heirs. A note in the Act puts it bluntly: references to a brother or sister do not include a brother or sister by uterine blood.

So a half brother inherits. A uterine brother does not.

Muslim personal law does it the other way. There a uterine sister and a uterine brother are both named sharers.

The workbook gives the two rules in two different sections, and does not comment on the difference.

The three blood relationships, section 14.4.2. The Act defines all three by reference to a common ancestor or ancestress.

The exclusion. The workbook states it twice on the same page. The bracketed note carried with the Schedule reads: references to a brother or sister do not include references to a brother or sister by uterine blood. And the definition itself says: the schedule of the Act excludes uterine brothers and sisters from inheritance of class I or class II heirs.

So the line is drawn at uterine blood, not at half blood. A half-blood sibling inherits alongside a full-blood one.

What the workbook does not say. The exclusion is stated for the Schedule's Class I and Class II references to a brother or sister. The workbook says nothing about a uterine sibling on the agnate or cognate route under Sections 8, 12 and 13, and it would be wrong to fill that in. Its definitions there are about how the relationship runs: a person is an agnate if related by blood or adoption wholly through males, and a cognate if related by blood or adoption but not wholly through males. Whether the uterine exclusion travels to those classes is not addressed, so a question is unlikely to be set on it.

The adjacent rule in the same list. Relationship by adoption: under the Hindu Succession Act an adopted child is, for all intentions and purposes, like a natural born child, and is treated as equivalent to relation of full blood. So the same list that shuts out a uterine sibling elevates an adopted child to full blood. Illegitimate relationship: illegitimate relationship with the father is not recognised, but it is recognised with the mother, and through their mother the children are related to each other.

The Muslim law position, section 14.4.3. The law of succession among Muslims draws on four sources — the Holy Quran, the Sunna, the Ijma and the Qiya — and recognises two types of heirs: Sharers, entitled to a certain share of the deceased's property, and Residuary, who take what is left after the sharers have taken their part.

There are 12 sharers, and the uterine siblings are at the end of the list:

What share they take is not stated. The workbook gives fractions for some sharers — a wife takes one-fourth where the couple has no lineal descendants and one-eighth otherwise; a husband takes one-half on succession to the wife's estate without lineal descendants and one-fourth otherwise; a sole daughter takes one-half, and more than one daughter take two-thirds jointly. It gives no fraction for the uterine sister or the uterine brother, and says only that various factors decide the share taken by each sharer.

Reading the two sections together. Section 14.4.2 shuts a uterine sibling out of Class I and Class II under the Hindu Succession Act. Section 14.4.3 names a uterine sister and a uterine brother as the 11th and 12th sharers under Muslim personal law. The workbook states both and does not join them or explain the difference. The examinable point is each rule in its own place, not a reason for the contrast.

Illustrative figures; the workbook gives the rules without a worked estate.

Mrs Pathak married twice. Her first marriage produced a son, Kedar. Her second produced a son, Manas. Mr Pathak, her second husband, also had a son, Rohan, by an earlier marriage.

Who is what to whom.

Manas dies intestate, a Hindu, leaving Rs 90,00,000 and no Class I heirs.

Under the Schedule's Class II, references to a brother or sister do not include a brother or sister by uterine blood.

Same degree of closeness in ordinary language. Same one shared parent. Rs 90,00,000 of difference, decided entirely by which parent was shared.

Now change the personal law, not the family. Suppose the same family were governed by Muslim personal law and the deceased left Rs 90,00,000. A uterine brother is the 12th of the 12 sharers. He is not shut out at all; he is a named sharer, and Kedar would have a claim where under the Hindu Succession Act he had none. What that claim is worth cannot be stated from this workbook, which gives fractions for the husband, the wife and daughters and none for uterine siblings.

And one contrast inside the same list. Had Mrs Pathak adopted a child instead, that child would be treated as equivalent to relation of full blood and would inherit as a full-blood sibling would. The adopted child gets everything the uterine brother is denied.

Chapter 14 (Basics of Estate Planning), section 14.4.2, on the Hindu Succession Act, defines full blood, half blood and uterine blood together, carries the bracketed note excluding uterine brothers and sisters from the Schedule's references to a brother or sister, and states the exclusion from Class I and Class II inheritance directly. The same list gives relationship by adoption and illegitimate relationship, and the definitions of agnate and cognate sit immediately above it. Section 14.4.3, on Muslim Personal Law, lists the two types of heirs and the 12 sharers, with the uterine sister at 11 and the uterine brother at 12, along with the share fractions for the husband, wife and daughters.

Expect a question naming two or three siblings of different blood relationships and asking which of them inherit — the uterine one does not — and a list question on the sharers under Muslim law, where the uterine sister and brother are genuine entries and not distractors.

• Uterine means same mother, different father. Half blood means same father, different mother. Candidates reverse these constantly, and the whole answer turns on which one it is.
• The exclusion line is drawn at uterine blood, not at half blood. A half-blood sibling inherits normally under Class II; only the uterine sibling is shut out.
• Under Hindu law the uterine sibling is excluded; under Muslim law the uterine sister and brother are sharers. Two different sections, two opposite answers. Read which personal law the question is set in.
• The workbook gives no share fraction for a uterine sharer. It gives fractions for the husband, the wife and daughters. Any specific fraction for a uterine sibling is not sourced here.
• The exclusion is stated for Class I and Class II only. The workbook does not address whether a uterine sibling can inherit as an agnate or a cognate, so do not reason it out from the definitions.
• An adopted child is treated as equivalent to full blood under the same Act, and is defined in the same list. It is the most favourable status in the list; uterine is the least.
• Illegitimate relationship is recognised with the mother, not the father, and through their mother such children are related to each other. That is a separate rule in the same list and is not a statement about uterine blood.
• Full sister, consanguine sister and uterine sister are three separate entries among the 12 sharers, at positions 9, 10 and 11. A question may offer only one of the three.