Daughter Have No Right to Inheritance in Property of Father Who Died Before 1956: Bombay High Court Clarifies

"A daughter would not have any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 if her father died before its enactment," holds Bombay High Court. Bombay High Court, in a significant judgment resolved a long-standing legal question: Whether a daughter could acquire inheritance rights in her father’s property when he passed away before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into effect. The court, comprising Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain, ruled that under the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, daughters were not granted any inheritance rights in such cases. This judgment settles decades of conflicting views regarding the scope of women's inheritance rights prior to the codification of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The case revolved around the estate of Yeshwantrao, who passed away in 1952, leaving behind two widows and three daughters. The primary legal question was whether Radhabai, one of his daughters, was entitled to a share in his property, given that her claim arose before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which significantly expanded women’s inheritance rights.

The Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937, was analyzed extensively. The provision granted widows a limited "Hindu Women’s Estate," allowing them to inherit property in the absence of male heirs. However, it was unequivocal that the 1937 Act excluded daughters from inheriting property if their father had a surviving widow.

Exclusion of Daughters under 1937 Act: The court interpreted Section 3 of the 1937 Act, which explicitly provided inheritance rights to widows but made no reference to daughters. Justice Jitendra Jain remarked:

"The absence of explicit inclusion of daughters under the 1937 Act signifies that the legislature intended to restrict inheritance rights to widows."

1956 Act and its Non-Retrospective Application: The court emphasized the non-retrospective nature of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Supreme Court's decision in Eramma v. Veerupana (1965) was cited, which stated:

"Succession rights under the 1956 Act apply only to individuals who died after its commencement. Where succession opened before 1956, the rights are governed by prevailing laws at the time of the individual’s death."

Progressive Changes by 2005 Amendment: The court acknowledged that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, brought daughters on par with sons regarding inheritance rights. However, this amendment did not alter rights where succession had opened before 1956, reinforcing the legislative intent of the earlier enactments.

Relying on Authoritative Commentaries: The court referenced Mulla’s Hindu Law and other commentaries to demonstrate that daughters were considered secondary heirs under customary Hindu law prior to 1956. It noted that societal norms then prioritized widows over daughters for inheritance purposes.

"A daughter would not have any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to the coming into force of the Act of 1956 in the property of her deceased father, who died before 1956, leaving behind him, in addition to such a daughter, his widow as well."

The court dismissed Radhabai's claim for a share in her father’s property, clarifying that inheritance rights must align with the legal framework in force at the time of the deceased's passing.

This judgment reaffirms that inheritance laws must be interpreted within their historical and legislative contexts. It underscores the progressive trajectory of women’s property rights in India, starting with limited rights under the 1937 Act, expanding through the 1956 Act, and achieving equality under the 2005 Amendment. However, it also firmly delineates the boundaries of retrospective application of these rights.

Date of Decision: November 12, 2024