Chhattisgarh HC: Daughters Can’t Claim Property Share Under Hindu Succession Act Pre-1956

The question of whether a daughter can claim a share in her father’s property has often been the subject of legal and emotional debate in Indian inheritance law. A recent ruling by the Chhattisgarh High Court has once again clarified the legal position a daughter cannot claim rights over her father’s property if he passed away before 1956, the year the Hindu Succession Act came into force.

The verdict sheds light on how inheritance under Mitakshara law operated before the codification of modern Hindu succession rules, and why the Hindu Succession Act does not apply retrospectively to cases predating its enactment.

Understanding the Case: The Dispute That Sparked the Ruling

The case involved a woman named Ragmania, who filed a claim seeking her share in her father’s property located in Surguja district, Chhattisgarh. Her father, Sudhin, had died around 1950–51, several years before the Hindu Succession Act came into effect.

In 2005, Ragmania filed a civil suit before a local court, seeking partition and declaration of ownership, asserting that she was entitled to a share as a legal heir. However, both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed her claim. Their reasoning was clear since the death occurred before 1956, the Hindu Succession Act could not apply retrospectively.

Unwilling to give up, Ragmania approached the Chhattisgarh High Court, challenging the previous rulings.

Also Read: Bengaluru’s Rising Property Prices Drive Homebuyers to Outskirts for Affordable Homes

High Court’s Decision: Daughters’ Rights Don’t Apply Retroactively

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas of the Chhattisgarh High Court, in his order dated October 13, 2025, upheld the findings of the lower courts. He observed that under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, if a Hindu man died before 1956, his separate property would devolve entirely upon his son, not his daughter.

The judge clarified that:

“When a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law dies before 1956, his property devolves upon his son. A daughter could only claim inheritance if there was no surviving male heir.”

The court also noted that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 had not altered the fundamental principle of male succession it merely expanded the list of female heirs who could succeed in the absence of male heirs.

By reiterating this interpretation, the Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that the Hindu Succession Act applies only to deaths occurring after 1956, making it non-retrospective in nature.

The Role of Mitakshara Law Before 1956

Before the Hindu Succession Act was enacted, inheritance among Hindus was largely governed by Mitakshara law, one of the two main schools of Hindu jurisprudence (the other being Dayabhaga, followed primarily in Bengal and Assam).

Under the Mitakshara system:

• Family property was coparcenary, meaning it belonged collectively to the male members of a joint Hindu family.
• Sons acquired an automatic right by birth to their father’s ancestral property.
• Daughters were not recognized as coparceners and could not demand partition.
• A daughter could only inherit if there were no male heirs.

In simple terms, Mitakshara law prioritized male lineage and inheritance continuity, leaving daughters with limited rights to their father’s property.

“Before the Hindu Succession Act came into force, inheritance among Hindus was guided by traditional Mitakshara principles that emphasized male succession.”

Court’s Legal Interpretation and Precedents

The High Court relied on established legal precedents to reach its conclusion. It referred to two major Supreme Court judgments:

1. Arshnoor Singh vs Harpal Kaur (2020) – where the apex court held that property inherited by a Hindu male before 1956 would be governed by Mitakshara law.
2. Arunachala Gounder vs Ponnusamy (2022) – which reaffirmed that property devolving before 1956 must be treated under pre-Act inheritance laws, not the Hindu Succession Act.

Based on these precedents, Justice Vyas concluded that Sudhin’s property, being self-acquired and pre-1956, rightfully devolved upon his son Baigadas. Hence, Ragmania’s claim was legally unsustainable.

“The judgment makes clear that only after the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act did daughters gain equal inheritance rights in ancestral property.”

Similar Rulings: Bombay High Court’s Consistent View

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision aligns with similar judgments from other state high courts. For instance, the Bombay High Court had, in 2024, delivered a comparable ruling in the Radhabai Shirke case.

In that case, Radhabai had sought a share in her father Yeshwantrao’s property. However, since Yeshwantrao had died in 1952, the court ruled that the Hindu Succession Act could not apply retrospectively. His wife, Bhikubai, was deemed the sole inheritor under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937.

These consistent rulings across jurisdictions reinforce a single legal principle the Hindu Succession Act does not operate retrospectively to reopen settled inheritance cases.

Supreme Court’s Stand on Post-1956 Cases

While pre-1956 cases follow the Mitakshara system, post-1956 inheritance is governed by the progressive provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

The Supreme Court, in several landmark judgments after 2005, has expanded daughters’ inheritance rights. In a 2022 ruling, the Court clarified that Hindu daughters can inherit their father’s property in the absence of other legal heirs, even if the father did not leave behind a will.

This reflects the evolution of gender equality in inheritance law over the decades.

“Post the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld daughters’ equal rights in ancestral property, marking a major step toward legal and social parity.”

Also Read: Mumbai Real Estate Prices Soar: ₹50–60 Lakh Now Gets Just 200 sq ft Studio

Implications: What This Means for Property Claims Today

The key takeaway from this judgment is the date of the father’s death determines the applicable law.

• If the father died before 1956, the inheritance will be governed by Mitakshara law, not the Hindu Succession Act.
• If he died after 1956, daughters and sons have equal rights to inherit the property.

This distinction is crucial for resolving disputes, especially in rural or semi-urban India, where ancestral property claims often span generations.

Legal experts say the judgment brings much-needed clarity:

“The court’s reasoning restores legal certainty the Hindu Succession Act cannot be applied retrospectively to undo inheritances that were already settled under older laws.”

Conclusion

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s ruling serves as an important reminder of how Hindu inheritance law has evolved from a male-centric Mitakshara framework to a more balanced, gender-equal system under the Hindu Succession Act.

While the modern law promotes equal rights for daughters, courts continue to respect historical legal frameworks for cases that occurred before 1956.

As India’s legal system continues to evolve, the Hindu Succession Act remains the cornerstone of inheritance reform a bridge between tradition and modernity. But as this judgment shows, its protections apply only from 1956 onwards, ensuring legal continuity while acknowledging the limits of retrospective justice.