Daughter’s Right in Ancestral Property Arises Only if Father Died After 1956 : Chhattisgarh High Court

“When the succession opened before 1956, the case is governed by Mitakshara law, and not by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or its 2005 amendment” – In a significant reaffirmation of pre-1956 Hindu inheritance principles, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal of a daughter claiming partition in ancestral property, holding that succession had opened before 1956, and therefore the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – including its landmark 2005 amendment – was not applicable.

Delivering a detailed and reasoned judgment on 13 October 2025, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas upheld the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts and ruled that the appellant had no right to claim partition or title under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, as her father had passed away in 1950–51, well before the enactment of the 1956 Act.

“Mitakshara Law Governed the Succession – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Not Applicable When Father Died Prior to 1956”

The Court framed and answered three substantial questions of law centering around whether the plaintiff could claim rights in the ancestral property under the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, despite the fact that her father died in 1950–51.

Rejecting the claim, the Court held:

“It is quite vivid that in the present case, Sudhin expired before 1956. As such, partition is governed by Mitakshara Law. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not applicable.” [Para 20–21]

The Court extensively relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur [(2020) 14 SCC 436] and Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy [(2022) 11 SCC 520], reiterating that:

“When a Hindu governed by Mitakshara Law dies before 1956, his separate property devolves entirely upon his son. A daughter may inherit only if no male issue exists.” [Para 29]

“Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Cannot Apply Retrospectively to Pre-1956 Succession”

The core of the plaintiff’s case rested on the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, which granted equal coparcenary rights to daughters. However, the Court held that this cannot apply retrospectively, and certainly not to cases where the succession opened before the 1956 Act came into force.

Justice Vyas noted: “The plaintiff must first plead and prove that the parties are governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, it was an admitted fact that the plaintiff’s father died in 1950–51. Therefore, the 1956 Act and its 2005 amendment are both inapplicable.” [Para 17–18]

Even during trial, the plaintiff’s own witness (PW-3) confirmed that Sudhin (the plaintiff’s father) had died “60 years ago” from 2008, confirming the 1950–51 timeline. The Court noted that the plaintiff had neither challenged nor rebutted this fact, despite the defendant’s clear plea in this regard.

“Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 Did Not Confer Equal Rights on Daughters”

The plaintiff had also invoked the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, arguing that female succession rights were recognised under it. The Court, however, clarified the limited scope of that enactment, holding:

“The Act of 1929 only enlarged the class of heirs to include certain females, but it did not change the fundamental rules of Mitakshara succession. It did not place daughters on equal footing with sons.” [Para 25]

Referring to the Arunachala Gounder ruling, the Court observed:

“Mitakshara law recognised inheritance by females only in the case of separate property, and even then, a daughter could inherit only in the absence of male issue.” [Para 27]

The Court emphasized that self-acquired property of a male Hindu under Mitakshara law devolves exclusively on male heirs, unless none exist.

“No Pleading, No Proof of Applicability of Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiff’s Claim Defeats Itself”

Critically, the Court noted that the plaintiff never pleaded when her father died, nor amended her pleadings when the defendant asserted that the death occurred in 1950–51. This omission proved fatal:

“Despite the defendant’s specific plea excluding the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff neither amended her pleadings nor led any evidence to rebut the fact. The case must, therefore, proceed on the admitted date of death.” [Para 17]

Thus, the entire claim based on the 2005 amendment stood on shaky ground and was unsustainable.

“No Right of Partition When Succession Opened Before Hindu Succession Act” – Appeal Dismissed

The Chhattisgarh High Court ultimately held that since the succession opened in 1950–51, the entire self-acquired property of the father devolved on the sole son Baigadas, and the plaintiff had no right to claim partition or title.

“On Sudhin’s death in 1950–51, his property devolved entirely upon Baigadas. Baigadas rightly conveyed his rights to the defendants. There is no illegality in mutation or possession.” [Para 30]

The Court answered all substantial questions of law against the plaintiff, reiterating that no right accrued to the plaintiff under Mitakshara law, and dismissed the appeal.

2005 Amendment Not a Tool to Reopen Settled Pre-1956 Successions

This judgment is a clear reinforcement of the principle that statutory reforms like the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 cannot apply retrospectively to reopen successions that opened before 1956. The daughter’s right to coparcenary introduced in 2005 operates prospectively, and only if the father was alive as on the date of the amendment.

By citing Arshnoor Singh, Arunachala Gounder, and other binding precedents, the Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that:

“Succession is governed by the law in force at the time of the ancestor’s death – not at the time of the suit or dispute.”

Date of Decision: 13 October 2025