Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act

"The provisions contained in the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment, in the same manner as son, with the same rights and liabilities." Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling, held that daughters are entitled to an equal share in ancestral property and land acquisition compensation as Class-I heirs, dismissing appeals that challenged the apportionment of over eleven crore rupees in awards.

A bench of Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed that the oral claims of family partition and attempts by male heirs to suppress the existence of daughters to monopolize compensation must be firmly rejected in light of statutory mandates and judicial precedent.

The dispute arose from the acquisition of land measuring over forty-eight decimals across two khatas in Mouza Lankahuda by the Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Government of Odisha, for the Ultra Mega Power Project in Sundargarh. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed awards amounting to over ₹6.33 crores and ₹4.80 crores respectively. Following writ petitions and directions, the matter was referred under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundargarh, who determined that the daughters were entitled to their respective shares alongside the sons, rejecting an unregistered partition deed set up by the male descendants.

The primary question before the court was whether the daughters of the original recorded tenant were entitled to a share in the compensation, and whether an unregistered family partition deed could be relied upon to exclude them. The court was also called upon to determine the proper apportionment of the compensation amount under Section 8 and Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, read with the amended Section 6.

Oral Testimony And Admissions Disprove Plea Of Exclusion

The bench meticulously examined the evidentiary record, noting that while the male heirs initially denied the status of the respondents as daughters of the common ancestor Karunakar Naik in their written pleadings, admissions during cross-examination conclusively established the familial relationship. The testimony of the brother, examined as O.P.W.1, clearly acknowledged the surviving sisters during trial.

The court pointed out that the suppression of material facts by the contesting male heirs was a deliberate ploy to swallow the entire multi-crore compensation corpus. Relying on Exhibit 2, an original Aadhaar card showing the daughter's lineage, and unassailed corroborative testimonies, the bench affirmed the finding that the claimants were indeed the legal daughters and Class-I heirs of the deceased.

Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible - Unregistered Partition Instrument Cannot Extinguish Rights

Addressing the reliance placed by the appellant on an unregistered document styled as a family partition deed from 1968 (marked as Ext.D), the court held that an instrument of partition which operates or is intended to operate as a declared volition severing ownership requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Citing the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh and this court's ruling in Golak Behari Biswal v. Karunakar Rout, the bench reiterated that if a partition is reduced to writing and purports by itself to affect a division, it is barred from being admitted in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act if unregistered.

Revenue Entries Do Not Convey Title - Mutation Does Not Create Or Extinguish Ownership

The bench reinforced the settled legal position that mutation entries in revenue records neither create nor extinguish title, nor do they possess presumptive value as to ownership. Referring to the Supreme Court's dictum in H. Lakshmaiah Reddy v. Venkatesh Reddy, the court noted that mutation merely enables the person in whose favour it is recorded to pay land revenue. The absence of the daughters' names in the record of rights was held to be the result of a fraudulent suppression of facts during mutation proceedings.

Application Of Vineeta Sharma Precedent - Daughters Equal Coparceners By Operation Of Law

Applying the authoritative larger bench ruling of the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the high court emphasized that the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confers the status of a coparcener upon a daughter born before or after the amendment in the exact same manner as a son. The bench noted that the apportionment of the compensation amount, along with accrued interest, must strictly abide by the parameters laid down in Vineeta Sharma.

Appellate Restraint In Land Acquisition Matters - Appellate Court Intervenes Only When Judgment Is Proven Wrong

Invoking the principles governing appellate interference in compensation awards as summarized by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras and reiterated in Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, the court observed that an appellate court does not interfere merely because an alternate view is possible on the balance of evidence, but only when the judgment under attack is shown to be wrong by reason of a misapplication of legal principles.

Final Directions And Disbursement

Finding no infirmity or illegality in the awards passed by the referral court, the high court dismissed both land acquisition appeals. The court directed the trial court in seisin of the matter to immediately determine the exact shares of the respective legal heirs in accordance with Vineeta Sharma and disburse the deposited compensation along with accrued interest without awaiting the formal appearance of every absentee beneficiary, issuing fresh notices to correct addresses where necessary.

Date of Decision: 14 August 2026