On July 30, 2026, Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman stated that the government is considering amending the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to allow parents to retain the right to possess and enjoy property during their lifetime even after transferring ownership to their children. Speaking to reporters at the Secretariat, he said the proposed reform aims to protect parents from becoming dependent on their children after gifting or transferring property, and to reduce family disputes and property-related civil litigation. Its stated objective is straightforward. Parents who transfer property during their lifetimes should not have to fear losing the security of their home or becoming dependent on the goodwill of the very children who receive it.
Viewed through the narrow lens of elder protection, the law minister’s proposal is both practical and overdue. It addresses a genuine concern that has long discouraged many parents from making lifetime gifts, which, in legal terms, mean a transfer of ownership of property between living persons without any price attached. Yet its implications extend far beyond protecting elderly parents. It raises important questions about Muslim personal law, succession, women’s property rights, and the future of property transactions in Bangladesh. The first question is whether the proposal conflicts with Islamic inheritance law. At first glance, some may assume that it does. After all, Islamic law prescribes fixed inheritance shares for heirs, including daughters, and those rules are regarded by many as both legally and religiously significant. Legally, however, the position is more nuanced.
Inheritance law applies only upon death and governs the estate, i.e. everything a person owns at the time of his/her death. A hiba, by contrast, is an inter vivos transfer, a gift made during the donor’s lifetime. Once a valid hiba is completed under the applicable principles of Muslim personal law, the property generally ceases to form part of the donor’s estate. The proposed reform does not appear to alter that fundamental principle. Rather, it modifies the legal consequences of the gift by allowing the donor to retain possession and beneficial use during their lifetime. In other words, the proposal does not rewrite Islamic inheritance law. It changes when inheritance law comes into force. That distinction is subtle, but significant.
If more property is transferred during a person’s lifetime, less property may ultimately remain within the estate to be distributed under the ordinary rules of succession. The proposed amendment, therefore, shifts the practical importance of inheritance law without necessarily changing its legal content. That shift has important implications for women. Some social media commentators have suggested that the minister’s proposal could strengthen women’s property rights, and there is a credible argument supporting that view. Many parents hesitate to transfer property during their lifetime because doing so has traditionally meant surrendering ownership, control and, in many cases, their own sense of security. Allowing parents to retain lifetime possession may remove that psychological and practical barrier. A parent who has long intended to transfer property to a daughter may now feel sufficiently protected to formalise that intention without fearing displacement. Yet the opposite outcome is equally conceivable.
Because lifetime gifts generally fall outside the estate later governed by inheritance law, a parent, feeling secured by the proposed change, may also choose to transfer substantial assets exclusively to their son before succession rules ever become operative. In such circumstances, daughters would inherit only from the assets remaining in the estate at death. If little remains, the practical value of their inheritance rights may be significantly reduced, even though the law governing inheritance itself remains unchanged. This is not a contradiction. It is the inevitable consequence of shifting wealth distribution from succession to lifetime transfers. Whether that development ultimately advances or weakens women’s economic security cannot be answered by examining the statute alone. The proposal is legally neutral. Its social consequences will depend upon how families choose to use it. That is precisely why the debate should not be reduced to slogans about protecting parents or empowering daughters. It concerns both, but it is ultimately about something larger: how legal rules interact with social realities.
The proposal also raises practical questions that will require careful legislative drafting. What precisely does “lifetime possession” entail? Does it include the right to lease the property and receive rental income? Who bears responsibility for maintenance, taxation, and insurance? How will retained possessory rights be reflected in the land registration system? Can a child mortgage property that remains subject to a parent’s lifetime right of occupation? What protection will exist for third-party purchasers or creditors acting in good faith? Without clear answers, the proposal risks replacing one category of litigation with another.
This should not be read as an argument against reform. On the contrary, the proposal demonstrates a welcome recognition that good private law seeks to prevent disputes rather than merely resolve them after relationships have broken down. But good legislation should also be judged by the legal relationships it reshapes along the way. The proposed amendment does more than protect elderly parents. It recalibrates the relationship between lifetime gifts, inheritance, and property ownership. Whether that recalibration ultimately promotes fairness, strengthens family autonomy, or produces unintended inequalities will depend not only on the wording of the final legislation, but also on the choices families make once the law places a new legal tool in their hands.
Barrister Noshin Nawal is a columnist for The Daily Star. She can be reached at [email protected].
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
