Daughter Not Entitled to Mitakshara Property Pre-1956 if Son Survives

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court   

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas held that under the Mitakshara law, a daughter cannot inherit her Hindu father’s property if he died before 1956, provided a son is alive. The Court clarified that in the absence of a male heir, a daughter may claim the property, but the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act does not apply retrospectively to cases governed by pre-1956 law. 

• The Chhattisgarh High Court held this in the matter of Smt. Ragmania (Dead) through LRs v. Jagmet & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Smt. Ragmania (Dead) through LRs v. Jagmet & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant Smt. Ragmania was the sister of Baigadas, both being children of Sudhinram. 
• After Ragmania's death, her legal heir Kariman Das was substituted as the appellant. 
• The respondents included Jagmet (son of Baigadas), Budhiyaro (widow of Baigadas), and the State of Chhattisgarh. 
• The family followed Hindu religion and was governed by Hindu Law. 
• The disputed property comprised agricultural lands at village Puhputra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 
• The lands were initially recorded jointly in names of Sudhinram and his brother Budhau. 
• Sudhinram died in approximately 1950-51, prior to enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 
• At the time of Sudhinram's death, the appellant was approximately 10 years old. 
• After Sudhinram's death, Baigadas came into possession of the entire suit property. 
• Baigadas got his name mutated in the revenue records. 
• The appellant's marriage was arranged by Baigadas after their father's death. 
• Baigadas filed an application before the Naib Tahsildar for mutation of property in favour of his daughter Jagmet. 
• The appellant learned about the mutation application through newspaper publication. 
• The appellant filed objections in Revenue Case No. 13-A-27/2002-03, claiming her rightful share. 
• Baigadas admitted the appellant was his sister but contended she had no right after marriage. 
• The Tahsildar rejected the appellant's objection on 23rd August 2003. 
• The appellant instituted Civil Suit No. 181-A/2005 on 6th October 2005 seeking declaration of title and partition. 
• The respondents pleaded that Sudhinram died in 1950-51, prior to commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 
• The respondents contended succession would be governed by old Mitakshara Law. 
• The respondents argued that under Mitakshara Law, a married daughter had no right when a male heir was alive. 
• The appellant failed to specifically plead when Sudhinram died in her plaint. 
• Witness PW-3 admitted in cross-examination that Sudhin expired 60 years prior to 17th October 2008. 
• This admission established that Sudhin died around 1948-49. 
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 26th December 2008. 
• The Trial Court held that Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not applicable as death occurred before 1956. 
• The First Appellate Court affirmed the decision on 23rd January 2014. 
• The appellant filed Second Appeal No. 178 of 2014 before the Chhattisgarh High Court. 
• The appellant argued that courts below ignored the 2005 Amendment to Hindu Succession Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that since the plaintiff failed to plead when Sudhin expired and did not rebut the defendant's specific plea that death occurred in 1950-51, coupled with PW-3's admission that Sudhin died 60 years before 2008, it was conclusively established that Sudhin died around 1948-49, prior to enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 
• The Court observed that since Sudhin expired before 1956, the succession opened under Old Hindu Law and the parties would be governed by Mitakshara Law, rendering the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and its 2005 Amendment completely inapplicable to the case. 
• The Court held it as well-settled law that under Mitakshara Law applicable to persons who died before 1956, a daughter is not entitled to inherit her father's property, whether ancestral or self-acquired, as such property devolved exclusively upon male issue, and only in absence of male child could wife or daughter inherit. 
• The Court concluded that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 did not modify fundamental concepts of Shastric Hindu law or affect the son's absolute right to inherit his father's property, but merely enlarged the circle of heirs who could succeed in default of male issue by introducing certain female heirs. 
• The Court extensively relied upon Supreme Court judgments in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (2020) and Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (2022), holding that if succession opened under old Hindu law prior to 1956, parties would be governed by Mitakshara law wherein female child could claim right only in absence of male child. 
• The Court definitively held that when a Hindu governed by Mitakshara law died before 1956, his separate property would completely devolve upon his son, and accordingly, on Sudhin's death his property devolved entirely upon Baigadas who rightly conveyed his rights to the defendants. 
• The Court found no illegality in the mutation orders in favour of defendants and held that the property was not partible, answering all three substantial questions of law against the plaintiff-appellant, and consequently dismissed the Second Appeal with no order as to costs. 

What Did Impart Regarding Mitakshara Law and Daughters’ Inheritance Rights? 

• Mitakshara School of Hindu Law: 
  • Mitakshara Law is the pristine school of Hindu law governing succession before 1956, based on ancient Shastric texts and Smritis. 
  • Under Mitakshara Law, sons, grandsons and great-grandsons acquire rights in ancestral property at birth, creating coparcenary rights. 
  • A son gets a share in his father's property by birth itself, not upon the father's death or by inheritance. 
  • When a male inherits property from paternal ancestors up to three degrees, his male heirs up to three degrees below automatically get equal coparcenary rights. 
• Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929: 
  • The 1929 Act was the earliest statutory legislation bringing Hindu females into the inheritance scheme by introducing certain female heirs. 
  • Section 1 of the 1929 Act applies only to property of males not held in coparcenary and not disposed of by will. 
  • Section 2 introduced son's daughter, daughter's daughter, sister and sister's son in succession order after father's father, but did not grant daughters equal status with sons. 
  • Section 3 provides that the 1929 Act shall not vest in females an estate larger than that possessed by females under Mitakshara law. 
  • The 1929 Act changed classification of certain female heirs from 'bandhus' to 'gotra sapindas' without changing inheritance rights. 
• Hindu Succession Act, 1956: 
  • The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 brought revolutionary change by codifying and reforming intestate succession laws among Hindus. 
  • Section 8 changed the old position whereby post-1956, inherited self-acquired property does not become coparcenary property. 
  • The 1956 Act applies only to successions opening after its commencement, i.e., where deceased died on or after 17th June 1956. 
  • Section 6 was amended in 2005 granting daughters equal coparcenary rights, but applies only prospectively, not to pre-1956 successions. 
  • Section 14 converted widows' limited interest into full ownership but applies only where the widow survived after the Act's commencement. 
  • Applicability of the 1956 Act depends on when succession opened (date of death), not the date of claiming rights or filing suit. 
• Hindu Women's Rights and Proprietary Rights Act, 1937: 
  • Section 3 of the 1937 Act provided widows only limited interest in husband's property, not absolute ownership. 
  • A widow's limited right converts into full right as Bhumiswami under Section 14 if she continued possession after 1956. 
• Distinction Between Pre-1956 and Post-1956 Law: 
  • Property inherited from paternal male ancestors remained coparcenary property under pre-1956 law, giving rights to male descendants. 
  • Post-1956, inherited self-acquired property from paternal ancestors becomes self-acquired property, not coparcenary property. 
  • Property nature and succession rights are determined by law applicable when succession opens, not by subsequent legislative changes. 
• Daughter's Rights Under Different Legal Regimes: 
  • Under Mitakshara Law before 1956, a daughter had no inheritance right if a son was alive, as property devolved exclusively on male issue. 
  • A daughter could inherit father's separate property only in complete absence of a male child, ranking fifth in succession order. 
  • Even after the 1929 Act, daughters did not acquire equal rights with sons when the father died before 1956. 
  • Daughters' rights were enhanced after 1956 and strengthened by the 2005 Amendment, but these apply only to successions opening after respective enactment dates.