Coparcenary Right of Daughter Is Not Derived from Father’s Consent, But by Birth: Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms Daughter’s Equal Share

“Ancestral Property Retains Its Character Even After Partition—Father Cannot Deny Daughter’s Birthright by Labeling It Self-Acquired”, - In a compelling reaffirmation of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a daughter’s coparcenary right in ancestral property arises by birth and cannot be negated by labeling such property as self-acquired. Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao, while dismissing Second Appeal No. 175 of 2023, upheld the lower courts’ rulings in favour of a daughter seeking partition and declared her entitled to a 1/4th share in undivided ancestral property received by her father through a family partition in 2004.

“Once a male issue or female (after 2005 amendment) is born to a coparcener, the ancestral property cannot be treated as his separate property.”

“Father Receiving Property in Partition Cannot Unilaterally Convert It Into Self-Acquired Property”
The father (1st defendant) contended that the property obtained by him through a 2004 partition deed became his exclusive, self-acquired property. He further claimed that he had provided his daughter (plaintiff) with ₹9 lakhs and helped her acquire other assets, and thus she had no further right.

The High Court rejected this claim, holding that: “The share acquired by a coparcener in a partition retains its ancestral character if it devolves through successive generations.”

It was observed that: “A coparcener cannot convert ancestral property into self-acquired property once children (coparceners) are born, unless there is a further partition.”

“Mere Plea of Oral Partition Cannot Defeat Statutory Coparcenary Rights—Proof Is Mandatory”
The father also pleaded that there was an oral partition among his children, which excluded the plaintiff. The Court, however, underlined that he neither entered the witness box nor produced any documentary proof.

“Failure to step into the witness box to prove the oral partition, despite making such a plea, discredits the defence.”
Relying on the well-established rule from Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, the Court observed: “Where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box, an adverse inference arises against him.”

“Daughter’s Right Not Defeated by Dowry or Settlement—Birthright Under Section 6 Prevails”
The High Court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff had already received sufficient dowry or settlement. It held that coparcenary rights cannot be extinguished by unverified financial contributions: “Alleged dowry or support through property purchases cannot be a substitute for a legal share in ancestral property.”

Quoting Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Court emphasized: “Coparcenary is a birthright; it is not contingent upon any subsequent event or father's consent.”

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts that the property retained its ancestral character, and the daughter’s claim was valid in law. The judgment reiterates that ancestral property cannot be converted to self-acquired property through partition, nor can daughters be denied their rights on the basis of gender or oral claims.

“The plaintiff has proved that the property is undivided ancestral property. She is entitled to 1/4th share. There is no legal infirmity in the findings of the lower courts.”

Date of Decision: 7 May 2025