The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a daughter cannot claim her father property if he died before 1956 under the Mitakshara Hindu law, while a son is alive. The court clarified that only in the absence of a male child can a daughter inherit her father’s property.
BILASPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a landmark judgment delivered by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, clearly held that as per Mitakshara Hindu Law, a daughter has no right to inherit her father property if he died before 1956, the year the Hindu Succession Act came into effect. The ruling came in a second appeal (SA No.178/2014) where the daughter had sought partition and share of her deceased father’s land.
The Court explained that succession for Hindus whose father died before the 1956 Act would be governed by the old Mitakshara Law, not by the later amendments. Justice Vyas emphasized —
“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 case began when the appellant, Ragmania, filed a civil suit in 2005 seeking declaration and partition of her father’s property in village Puhputra, District Surguja. She claimed her father’s land had been wrongly mutated in the name of her brother, Baigadas, and his heirs. However, both the trial court and the first appellate court rejected her claim, noting that her father died in 1950–51, long before the Hindu Succession Act came into force.
On appeal, the High Court observed that the record clearly proved the father’s death occurred before 1956, and therefore, the rights of inheritance must be decided under the traditional Mitakshara law, not the 1956 Act or its 2005 Amendment.
Justice Vyas referred to Supreme Court decisions, including Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (2019) and Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRs v. Ponnusamy (2022), explaining that the 1929 Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act had only extended inheritance rights to some female heirs but did not alter the fundamental principle of male succession under Mitakshara law. The Court reiterated —
“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.”
The Court further observed that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, did not change the son’s absolute right to inherit property. It only widened the list of heirs who could inherit in case there was no male issue.
The Bench concluded that since the plaintiff’s father, Sudhin, had died before 1956, his property automatically devolved on his son, Baigadas. Thus, Ragmania, the daughter, could not claim a share while her brother was alive.
“Thus, 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.”
Relying also on ancient Mitakshara texts quoted in earlier judgments, Justice Vyas observed that the Hindu law had always prioritized sons in succession before statutory reforms like the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and its 2005 amendment.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the second appeal, stating that there was no error in the lower court’s decisions and that the property was rightly mutated in favour of the defendants.
“Consequently, substantial questions of law framed by this Court are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
Interestingly, the Supreme Court in Arunachala Gounder (2022) had also observed —
“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…”
However, the Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that such principles apply only when the father’s death occurred after 1956, not before. Thus, this ruling once again emphasizes that the timing of death—before or after the Hindu Succession Act—decides the inheritance rights under Hindu law.
Explanatory Table – Laws and Sections Mentioned in the Judgment
| Law / Act | Section / Provision Discussed | Essence / Explanation in Simple Words |
|---|---|---|
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Section 100 | Allows filing of a Second Appeal before the High Court when there is a substantial question of law. Ragmania filed her appeal under this section. |
| Hindu Succession Act, 1956 | General reference + Section 6 (amended 2005) | This Act gave daughters equal coparcenary rights in joint family property. But it applies only if the father died after 1956. Since Ragmania’s father died in 1950-51, the Act did not apply. |
| Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 | Amendment to Section 6 | Made daughters coparceners by birth, equal to sons. However, the court said this amendment cannot operate retrospectively for deaths before 1956. |
| Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 | Sections 1 to 3 | This pre-independence Act added certain female heirs (son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, sister, sister’s son) to the list of heirs but did not change the basic Mitakshara rule that sons inherit first. |
| Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 | Section 3 (referred in arguments) | Granted widows a limited estate in their husband’s property. After 1956, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act converted such limited rights into absolute ownership, if the widow was in possession. |
| Mitakshara School of Hindu Law | Customary Hindu Law (before 1956)** | Under Mitakshara Law, property descended to male heirs by birth (sons, grandsons, great-grandsons). A daughter or wife could inherit only if no male issue existed. |
| Supreme Court Precedents Cited | 1. Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (2020 14 SCC 436) 2. Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by LRs v. Ponnusamy (2022 11 SCC 520) 3. Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad (2018 SCC OnLine SC 846) 4. Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987 1 SCC 204) | These landmark rulings reaffirmed that if a Hindu male died before 1956, his estate devolved under Mitakshara law—to sons only. They also explained how Section 8 of the 1956 Act changed this for later cases. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Smt. Ragmania (Died) Through LRs Kariman Das v. Jagmet & Ors.
- Case No.: Second Appeal No. 178 of 2014
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
- Judgment Reserved On: 15 July 2025
- Judgment Delivered On: 13 October 2025
- Coram / Bench: Hon’ble Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
- Appellant: Smt. Ragmania (Died) Through LR Kariman Das S/o Sunder Das
- Respondents: 1. Jagmet S/o Baigadas 2. Budhiyaro W/o Baigadas 3. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Surguja
- Advocate for Appellant: Mr. Rahul Kumar Mishra
- Advocates for Respondents 1 & 2: Mr. Divyanand Patel
- Advocate for State: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer
- Result: Second Appeal Dismissed – Findings upheld that daughter cannot inherit father’s property who died before 1956 under Mitakshara law
- Citation: Neutral Citation No. 2025:CGHC:50803
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised