In every society there is always disagreement between individuals, and these disagreements may lead to having a dispute or conflict. Every conflict can be resolved by two ways i.e inside a courtroom (litigation) or outside the courtroom (Non litigation).

Litigation means dealing with problems in a court. It involves making a case, having a conflict, and using a specific place (the court) to solve that problem. It also means using the law to stop conflicts. The whole idea of litigation is based on winning or losing.

The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), a website that keeps track of information about cases waiting to be solved and those already dealt with in all districts and taluka courts of the country, shows that our legal system is struggling. There are currently 47 million cases waiting to be solved in different courts across the country because of a huge backlog of 4.15 crore cases (3.06 crore criminal cases and 1.08 crore civil cases) in various district courts or subordinate courts. Out of these, 59 lakh cases (17 lakh criminal cases and 42 lakh civil cases) are waiting in High Courts, and another 70,000 are waiting in the Supreme Court[1].

To handle this problem, states are making new rules and ways to solve problems that don't rely on the usual legal system, which is finding it hard to keep up with all the cases.

In this situation, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has become popular. ADR means finding different ways for people to work out their problems without going to trial. ADR is liked because it has many benefits, like being flexible, private, easy to follow, cost-effective, and quick in solving problems.

When it comes to ADR it includes various resolution processes such as mediation, arbitration, negotiation. Which provides the parties to a dispute a lot of options to choose from which is best suited for their dispute. Moreover it provides the parties to have control over the proceedings to some extent.

ADR encompasses a range of methods and strategies designed to enable the friendly settlement of legal disputes without resorting to court proceedings. This involves mediation, arbitration, negotiation, conciliation, and various "hybrid" approaches where a neutral individual, chosen by the involved parties, facilitates the resolution of legal conflicts through mutual agreement.

The practice of mediation is deeply ingrained in the historical roots of Indian dispute resolution. Dating back to ancient legal systems, the concept of "Shantidoot" exemplifies the use of mediation before conflicts or battles. In more recent times, the prevalent systems of "Gram Panchayats" and "Nyaya Panchayats" were widely adopted in rural India. Mediation is a dynamic and voluntary process for resolving disputes, where an impartial third party assists the involved parties in finding a resolution through specialized communication and negotiation techniques. These techniques are crafted to facilitate the mediation process, aiming for a harmonious and mutually agreeable solution.

Justice NV Ramana had recently suggested that "courts should proactively incorporate mandatory negotiation and mediation into case management procedures".

Hindu Inheritance Laws in India
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is an Act relating to the succession and inheritance of property. This Act lays down a comprehensive and uniform system that incorporates both succession and inheritance. This Act also deals with intestate or unwilled (testamentary) succession. Therefore, this Act combines all the aspects of Hindu succession and brings them into its ambit.

Coparcenary is a legal concept within Hindu joint families, encompassing individuals who inherit or share a collective legal entitlement to ancestral property. These individuals, referred to as coparceners, are descendants of a common ancestor and automatically gain their right to joint property by birth. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 has brought about changes in the devolution of interest in coparcenary property, altering the legal landscape surrounding coparcenary property rights.

The dissolution of the coparcenary concept occurs following a partition in a Hindu joint family. Section 6 of the Act outlines the inheritance of interest in coparcenary property. Prior to the 2005 Amendment, in cases of intestate (death without a will), the devolution of one's interest in coparcenary property was dictated by the rule of survivorship rather than succession. The provision specified that if the deceased, without a will, left female heirs within Class I, the rules of succession would apply, rendering the rule of survivorship inapplicable to female heirs. In such cases, female heirs did not inherit property if male heirs were present.

The position of the law with respect to coparcenary property has changed since the 2005 amendment. It is now a well-established law under Section 6 of the Act that daughters are coparceners by birth and have the same and equal rights as sons. She has all the rights to inherit coparcenary property like a son and would also have to fulfil the liabilities. All of this is applicable after the commencement of the amendment Act. However, there will be no change in any devolution done before 2004.

It also provides that such a property inherited by a female will be her own property, and she will be an absolute owner and not a limited owner. It further states that a coparcenary property will be devolved assuming that a partition has taken place with respect to such property, in which the daughters will receive the same share as given to the sons.

The Hindu succession Act 1956, governs the distribution of property of the deceased among his legal heirs when he dies intestate. Over the years the act has evolved and has tried to achieve gender equality.

Alternate Dispute Resolution
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has a rich history in numerous nations, including India, where the tradition of resolving disputes through mediation and conciliation has ancient roots. In historical India, Panchayats served as forums for settling disputes in rural areas. Rather than taking disputes to legal courts, villages relied on 'Panchayats,' composed of esteemed village elders.

These elders, known as 'Panch Parameswar,' were a group of five individuals who resolved civil, criminal, and family disputes. Operating independently of state authority and control, this system was highly effective in villages. The practice of parties resolving their conflicts through a binding process, involving individuals of their choice or private tribunals, was well-established in ancient and medieval India.

The Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996
The Arbitration Act of 1940, initially designed for the efficient and prompt resolution of disputes, had become obsolete, a point emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in the Gurunanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh and Sons[1] case. Recognizing the need for legal reforms in alignment with the liberalization of the economy and globalization of world markets, the Indian government acknowledged that updating business laws was crucial for the effective implementation of economic reforms.

Consequently, amendments were introduced to the arbitration law in India, leading to the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. This new legislation closely mirrors the UNCITRAL Model Law on Arbitration, aiming to ensure that disputes arising in international commercial relations are resolved fairly, efficiently, and expeditiously. This shift may explain the significant impact that arbitration has gained in settling international disputes in recent years.

Benefits Of ADR In Hindu Inheritance Cases:

1. Cost-effectiveness, Time Efficiency, and Flexibility: One of the key advantages of employing mediation and ADR in Hindu inheritance cases lies in their cost-effectiveness, time efficiency, and flexibility. Traditional legal proceedings, with their lengthy court processes and associated expenses, can exacerbate family tensions and deplete resources. Mediation, in contrast, tends to be more time-efficient and cost-effective, allowing parties to reach a resolution without the protracted timelines of litigation.
   
   Additionally, the flexibility inherent in ADR processes enables parties to tailor solutions to their unique cultural and familial circumstances. This adaptability ensures that the resolution aligns with the specific needs and values of the involved parties, contributing to a more satisfactory and enduring outcome.
    
2. Preservation of Familial Relationships and Cultural Values: Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods offer substantial benefits in the context of Hindu inheritance cases, particularly in preserving familial relationships and cultural values. Inherent to the joint family structure and deep-rooted cultural traditions, disputes over inheritance can strain familial bonds.
   
   Mediation, with its emphasis on open communication and understanding, provides a platform for family members to express their concerns, emotions, and expectations in a structured and facilitated environment. By fostering dialogue and encouraging compromise, mediation helps prevent the irreparable damage that often accompanies adversarial legal battles. This approach ensures that family relationships endure beyond the resolution of the dispute, aligning with the cultural importance placed on maintaining harmony within Hindu families.
    
3. Potential for Increased Use of Mediation and ADR in Hindu Inheritance Cases: The future prospects for increased use of mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Hindu inheritance cases are promising, driven by the inherent advantages these methods offer. As awareness grows about the cultural and familial nuances involved in inheritance disputes, there is a greater appreciation for approaches that prioritize open communication, collaboration, and culturally sensitive resolutions.
   
   The success stories of families resolving disputes amicably through mediation contribute to a positive perception of these methods. Additionally, the burden on the judicial system, evident in the backlog of cases, may drive a shift towards ADR methods as a more efficient and timely alternative. The potential for increased use lies in the continued education of legal practitioners, families, and policymakers about the benefits of mediation and ADR in navigating the complexities of Hindu inheritance cases.

Conclusion
In summary, this research delves into the complexities surrounding Hindu inheritance cases, emphasizing the vital role played by mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in preserving cultural and familial harmony within this context. Our exploration of family structures, traditions, and emotional ties specific to Hindu inheritance disputes has underscored the limitations of traditional legal approaches, highlighting the necessity for more nuanced and culturally sensitive solutions.

Mediation stands out as a powerful tool due to its collaborative nature, fostering open communication and addressing the intricate dynamics of familial relationships. Comparisons with conventional legal methods have illuminated the distinct advantages of mediation, such as tailored resolutions, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency in reaching outcomes. The global context further illustrates the importance of adaptable and culturally aware dispute resolution mechanisms.

This research reaffirms the ongoing relevance of mediation and ADR in the contemporary legal landscape, not just as pragmatic tools for dispute resolution but as instruments that uphold familial bonds and cultural values. As awareness grows and education on the benefits of these methods spreads, the potential for increased utilization of mediation in Hindu inheritance cases aligns with the evolving needs of modern society. It reflects a harmonious integration of cultural understanding within legal frameworks, fostering more effective and culturally sensitive resolutions in familial disputes.