Daughter Not Entitled To Inherit Property Of Mitakshara Hindu Father Who Died Before 1956 If Son Is Alive: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that as per the Mitakshara school of law, a daughter is not entitled to inherit the properties of her deceased Hindu father, who died prior to the year 1956 i.e. year of enactment of Hindu Succession Act, if son is alive.A Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas also clarified that a daughter can claim her right over such property in absence of son. In...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that as per the Mitakshara school of law, a daughter is not entitled to inherit the properties of her deceased Hindu father, who died prior to the year 1956 i.e. year of enactment of Hindu Succession Act, if son is alive.
A Single Bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas also clarified that a daughter can claim her right over such property in absence of son. In the words of the Court –
“It is well settled legal position of law that as per Mitakshara Law, the daughter is not entitled to inherit the property of her father before the enactment of the Act, 1956…Under the Mitakshara law, even the self-acquired property of a male devolved exclusively upon his male issue, and only in the absence of such male issue did it pass to other heirs and as per Law of inheritance the self-acquired estate of a male would descend to his male issue and only in default of such issue would it descend to others.”
The Appellant and father of Respondent No.1 were siblings. After the death of their father, the latter was holding possession over the property. Subsequently, he moved an application before the jurisdictional Naib Tahasildar for mutation of the property in favour of the Respondent No.1. Learning about the same, the Appellant filed objection to such mutation, which got rejected.
Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed a suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Sarguja claiming her share in the disputed property. However, the Civil Judge rejected such claim taking into account the fact that her father died prior to the enact of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, it was held that the 2005 Amendment to the Act shall not be beneficial to the Appellant since her case shall be governed by the old Mitakshara law, which held the field before 1956.
Though the decision of the Civil Judge was carried in appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, the result could not be altered and thus, giving rise to the instant second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC before the High Court.
The Bench admitted the appeal by framing three substantial questions of law which were basically concerned with the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act and the Amendment Act, 2005 thereof to the case at hand. One of the questions was also about the right of the Appellant to inherit the property by way of succession, in case the partition took place before 1956.
After perusing the plaint, the Court underlined that the pleading nowhere indicated the year of death of the Appellant's father. However, the Respondent No.1, in her written statement, took a specific plea that the Appellant's father expired in the year 1950-51. Despite such pleading by the Respondent No.1, the Court said, the Appellant abstained from opposing the same by amending its pleading. Reliance was further placed upon the testimony of a witness who, at the time of recording of his evidence (17.10.2008), stated that the Appellant's father had died sixty years back.
Citing the decisions of the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur & Ors. (2019) and Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRs v. Ponnusamy & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 71, the Court opined that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 was enacted not to modify the fundamental concepts of Shastric Hindu law relating to inheritance rather it merely enlarged the number of heirs, who could succeed in absence of a male issue, by introducing certain female heirs.
“From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunachala Gounder's case (supra), it is quite vivid, that Mitakshara Law of inheritance applicable to a person who died before 1956 and who was governed by the pristine Mitakshara law, the wife or daughter of a male would inherit his separate property only if he died without a male child,” it added.
Thus, it was concluded that when a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law died before 1956, his separate property would completely devolve upon his son. A daughter can claim right in such property only in the absence of a male child. It further held that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 did not affect the son's absolute right to inherit his father's property.
Accordingly, no merit was found in the second appeal and all the substantial questions of law were answered against the Appellant.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court in Arunachala Gounder (supra) held that a daughter is capable of inheriting the self-acquired property or share received in the partition of a coparcenary property of her Hindu father dying intestate. It had further held –
"Right of a widow or daughter to inherit the self-acquired property or share received in partition of a coparcenary property of a Hindu male dying intestate is well recognized not only under the old customary Hindu Law but also by various judicial pronouncements...”
Case Title: Smt. Ragmania (Dead) through LRs v. Jagmet & Ors.
Case No: Second Appeal No. 178 of 2014
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Rahul Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate for the private Respondents; Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer for the State