The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a daughter cannot claim a share in her father’s property if the succession began before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into effect. The Court explained that in such cases, the property division is guided by the Mitakshara Law, which allows a daughter to inherit only when there is no surviving male heir.
Case Details and Court’s Decision
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas delivered the judgment on October 13 in the case of Ragmania (deceased) through legal representatives (LRs) Kariman Das vs Jagmet and others. The Court upheld the decisions of both the trial and appellate courts that had already rejected the plaintiff’s claim for a share in her father’s ancestral land in Surguja district, Chhattisgarh. The Court stated, “If a Hindu man governed by Mitakshara Law died before 1956, his individual property would pass entirely to his son. A daughter could only claim rights if there was no son.”
The plaintiff, Ragmania, had filed a civil case in 2005 asking for a declaration of ownership and partition, saying she had the right to inherit her late father Sudhin’s property. Sudhin had died around 1950–51, years before the Hindu Succession Act came into force.
Lower Courts’ Findings
Both the trial and appellate courts had denied her request, noting that since Sudhin’s death occurred before 1956, the Hindu Succession Act was not applicable. The High Court agreed with this finding and stated that the inheritance should be settled according to the Mitakshara Law because the succession began before 1956.
Reference to Supreme Court Rulings
The High Court also referred to Supreme Court judgments such as Arshnoor Singh vs Harpal Kaur (2020) and Arunachala Gounder vs Ponnusamy (2022). These rulings confirmed that under the Mitakshara system, property inherited by a Hindu male before 1956 went only to his male heirs, and daughters could inherit only when there were no male heirs. Justice Vyas further emphasized, “When a Hindu man governed by Mitakshara Law died before 1956, his property would pass entirely to his son, and a daughter could claim a share only if there was no son.” Since it was clear that Sudhin died before 1956 and had a surviving son, the Court ruled that the plaintiff had no right to claim any part of the property. The High Court concluded that both lower courts had applied the correct law, and the appeal was dismissed.
