No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

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