Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Gauhati High Court Upholds Equal Inheritance Rights for Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act”

11 September 2024 9:11 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


The Gauhati High Court has upheld the trial court’s decision granting a 1/8th share of the property to Smti. Mira Nandi Dutta, a daughter of the deceased Bhupendra Chandra Nandi. The appellants, who are the sons of the deceased, had challenged this decision, claiming an oral agreement among heirs that excluded daughters from the inheritance. The judgment, delivered on June 27, 2024, reaffirms the equal inheritance rights of daughters under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Late Bhupendra Chandra Nandi, who owned a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 5 Lechas, passed away on November 13, 1991, leaving behind four sons and four daughters. Following his death, his sons demolished the old residence and constructed a multistoried commercial complex on the property. The daughters, who were already married at the time of their father’s death, were allegedly excluded from the property through an oral agreement made among the heirs on August 14, 1991.

Smti. Mira Nandi Dutta, one of the daughters, later demanded her rightful share of the property. The sons counterclaimed, asserting exclusive ownership of the property due to their financial investment in the construction of the building. The trial court decreed in favor of Smti. Mira Nandi Dutta, which led to the present appeal by the sons.

The court found no evidence to support the claim of an oral agreement excluding the daughters from their inheritance. “There is no evidence in this case to show that the daughters of late Bhupendra Chandra Nandi had agreed not to demand their shares in the suit property,” the judgment noted.

The court reiterated that daughters are Class-I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, enjoying the same rights as sons. “The marriage of a daughter has no relevance for inheriting property. As a daughter, she enjoys the same coparcenary rights as a son,” the court emphasized.

The court deemed the mutation of the property in the names of only the sons to be illegal, stressing that all Class-I heirs, including daughters, are entitled to equal shares. “The mutation of only four sons is illegal and liable to be corrected,” the court declared.

The appellants’ claim of exclusive ownership due to their financial contributions to the building was rejected. The court held that contributions to the construction did not negate the statutory share of the daughters. “In view of Section 8, the sons of late Bhupendra Chandra Nandi are not the only owners of the building. Smti. Mira Dutta Nandi also has a share in the said property,” the judgment affirmed.

Justice [Name] remarked, “Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court had correctly answered these issues in favor of Smti. Mira Nandi Dutta. Accordingly, these issues were decided in the affirmative.”

The dismissal of the appeal by the Gauhati High Court underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding equal inheritance rights for daughters under the Hindu Succession Act. By affirming the trial court’s findings, the judgment reinforces the legal framework ensuring gender equality in inheritance matters. This landmark decision is expected to have a significant impact on future cases, promoting the rightful inclusion of daughters in inheritance distributions.

Date of Decision: June 27, 2024

SRI BIJOY NANDI AND 3 ORS versus SMTI MIRA NANDI DUTTA AND 3 ORS

Latest Legal News