-
by sayum
18 February 2026 8:14 AM
“The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gave daughters equal rights as sons – and that includes the right to challenge sales made without their consent. A purchaser who buys joint family property after 2005, ignoring daughters, does so at his own risk.”
In a strong reaffirmation of women's coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act, the Telangana High Court on April 4, 2025, dismissed the appeal of a purchaser who had bought disputed ancestral property from some male members of a joint Hindu family, ignoring the legal heirs of a predeceased daughter. The Court upheld the trial court’s decree granting 1/6th share each to the plaintiffs, including a married daughter and the children of her deceased sister, as Class-I legal heirs of the original owner.
Justice Renuka Yara, dismissing Appeal Suit No. 265 of 2019, ruled that the sale deed executed in 2008 in favour of the appellant was not binding, as it violated the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which came into force on September 9, 2005, granting daughters equal coparcenary rights.
“The alienation in favour of defendant No.6 in 2008 cannot stand — daughters were coparceners by then and should have been joined as vendors.”
“You Can’t Use a Backdated Partition to Cut Out Daughters – No Registered Partition Deed Means No Proof of Separation”
The purchaser, who was defendant No.6 in the original suit, claimed that he had legally bought the land in 2008 from defendant Nos.1 to 4, who had allegedly partitioned the land among themselves back in 1989. But the High Court found this claim to be unsupported.
“The so-called partition among male members has no legal weight — there’s no registered partition deed. Without that, it’s not binding.”
“Daughters and legal heirs of predeceased daughters are entitled to equal share unless partition was legally effected before 2005.”
“Even If the Daughter Died Before 2005, Her Children Have Inherited Her Right”
The Court applied the doctrine laid down in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, and clarified that even if the daughter died before the 2005 amendment, her legal heirs can still inherit her coparcenary share.
“The surviving daughter and legal heirs of the predeceased daughter are entitled to shares — their rights are rooted in the coparcenary lineage.”
“Purchasers Must Beware – Buying Property from a Few Members of a Joint Family Without Checking Rights of Others Is a Legal Gamble”
The Court observed that defendant No.6, the purchaser, had not taken consent from the daughters, nor made any effort to verify whether all coparceners had joined in the sale. He later tried to argue that the property was self-acquired by the male members, but the Court rejected this too.
“Late Sayanna acquired the land in 1972 and died intestate — the property passed to all his Class-I heirs, including daughters.”
“Possession by defendant No.6 is not exclusive — joint family property remains in constructive possession of all sharers.”
“You Can’t Deny Daughters Their Share Just Because They Were Married Off Long Ago”
The male defendants had argued that the daughters had already been “given away in marriage” with ornaments and expenses, and hence lost their right to inherit. The Court dismissed this outdated reasoning outright.
“There is no evidence of dowry or final settlement. Marriage does not extinguish a daughter’s legal rights in her ancestral property.”
“Trial Court’s Decree Allotting 1/6th Share Each Is Perfectly Legal – No Interference Warranted”
With these observations, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decree in O.S. No. 26 of 2012, directing that the suit schedule property be partitioned, with shares given to both plaintiffs and male defendants. It also confirmed that the purchaser’s share would be limited to what the male defendants could legally sell — and not at the cost of female coparceners.
“Alienations made after 2005 without daughters’ consent are voidable — and so is your sale deed,” says Telangana High Court
Date of Decsion: 04 April 2025
