The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a daughter cannot claim a share in her father’s property if he passed away before 1956, the year the Hindu Succession Act came into force. Emphasising that such inheritance is governed by the Mitakshara law, the court observed that under this traditional system, a daughter is not entitled to her deceased father’s property if a son is alive. However, she may claim a right to the property in the absence of a son.
“…Thus from the above stated discussion and considering the legal position, it is quite vivid that when a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law died before 1956, his separate property would completely devolve upon his son. A female child could claim a right in such property only in the absence of a male child. The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 did not affect the son’s absolute right to inherit his father’s property. It merely enlarged the circle of heirs who could succeed in default of male issue, by introducing certain female heirs and the sister’s son. In view of the above facts and considering the law and evidence brought on record, admittedly the parties are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law as Sudhin expired before 1956. On his death, his self-acquired property would devolve entirely upon Baigadas,” the court said in its order.
Matters relating to succession rights to a Hindu father’s property are governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Details of the case
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, in a judgment delivered on October 13, upheld the trial and appellate court rulings that dismissed the claim of plaintiff Ragmania, who had sought a share in her late father’s ancestral property in Chhattisgarh’s Surguja district.
In 2005, Ragmania had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title and partition, claiming a right to inherit her father Sudhin’s estate. However, since Sudhin had died around 1950–51, both the trial and appellate courts dismissed her plea, ruling that the Hindu Succession Act was inapplicable as the death had occurred before 1956.
The High Court agreed with the lower courts, referring to Supreme Court judgments in Arshnoor Singh vs Harpal Kaur (2020) and Arunachala Gounder vs Ponnusamy (2022). It held that property inherited by a Hindu man before 1956 devolved exclusively upon his male heirs, with daughters entitled to a share only in the absence of sons. Since Sudhin was survived by a son, the court ruled that Ragmania had no claim to the property, affirming that the lower courts had “rightly applied the law” in dismissing her suit.
Other court orders
The Bombay High Court had clarified last year that daughters have no claim to their father’s property if he died before the Hindu Succession Act was enacted in 1956. The case provides legal clarity on the question of whether daughters held inheritance rights prior to 1956, especially when the deceased was succeeded by a wife.
Also Read: Daughters can’t inherit father’s property before 1956, HC clarifies
The case was filed by Radhabai Shirke, who sought a share in her father Yeshwantrao’s property. Yeshwantrao, who died in 1952, had two wives: Laxmibai, with whom he had two daughters, Sonubai and Radhabai; and Bhikubai, with whom he had a daughter named Champubai.
Laxmibai predeceased Yeshwantrao, in 1930. After his death, Bhikubai continued to reside on the property before she died in 1973, leaving a will in favor of her daughter, Champubai. Radhabai, however, argued for her right to a half-share of the property and filed for partition. The trial court, and later an appellate court, dismissed her claim, ruling that Bhikubai was the sole inheritor under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. Radhabai then appealed in the high court.
It should be noted that in 2022, the Supreme Court had made it clear that Hindu daughters would be entitled to inherit the property of their father in the absence of any other legal heir; they would receive preference over other members of the family in inheriting the property even if the father does not leave behind a will.
Also Read: Grandchildren cannot lay claim to grandparents’ property if parent is alive, rules High Court