Daughters cannot claim a share in their father’s ancestral property if he died before 1956 — even if they file a case today. The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the date of the father’s death determines which inheritance law applies, not when the claim is made.
Before 1956, Hindu inheritance depended on the regional legal system — either Mitakshara Law or Dayabhaga Law.
This system covered most Indian states, including Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Punjab.
How it worked:
• Only sons inherited ancestral property.
• Sons had rights by birth — they owned a share even while the father was alive.
• Daughters inherited only if there were no sons.
• Property remained within the male lineage.
Example: Ram dies in 1950 in Delhi, leaving ancestral land, two sons (Mohan and Sohan), and one daughter (Geeta). Under Mitakshara Law, only Mohan and Sohan inherit the ancestral property. Geeta gets nothing because male heirs exist.
This system applied mainly in West Bengal and Assam.
How it worked:
• Sons inherited only after the father’s death (not by birth).
• Provided somewhat better rights to women compared to Mitakshara.
• Still male-preferential, but less rigid.
Example: Gopal dies in 1950 in Kolkata, leaving ancestral land, one son (Anil), and one daughter (Rama). Under Dayabhaga Law, Anil inherits the property, while Rama has limited rights but slightly better recognition than under Mitakshara.
Inheritance was governed by either Mitakshara or Dayabhaga Law, both of which largely excluded daughters from ancestral property when sons existed.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reformed inheritance laws by granting daughters rights in their father’s self-acquired or separate property. However, sons continued to hold coparcenary rights by birth in ancestral property.
Example: Hari dies in 1960, leaving ancestral property, one son (Vijay), and one daughter (Priya). Vijay gets his coparcenary share by birth. Priya can claim a share in her father’s separate property, but not equal rights in the ancestral property.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 made daughters equal coparceners with sons in ancestral property. Daughters now get rights by birth, just like sons — a historic reform for women’s property rights.
Example: Suresh dies in 2010 with ancestral property, one son (Rahul) and one daughter (Anjali). Both Rahul and Anjali inherit equally as coparceners.
The Facts:
• Ragmania’s father, Sudhin, died around 1950–51 in Chhattisgarh (Mitakshara region).
• He left ancestral property, one son, and one daughter (Ragmania).
• Ragmania filed a case in 2005 claiming her share.
The Court’s Decision:
The court held that the key factor is the father’s date of death (1950–51), not the year the case was filed. Since Sudhin died before 1956, Mitakshara Law applies — meaning only the son inherited the ancestral property when male heirs existed.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas clarified: “When a Hindu governed by Mitakshara Law died before 1956, his property devolved entirely upon his son. A daughter could claim a share only in the absence of a male heir.”
In essence: The 1956 Act and 2005 Amendment do not apply retroactively. They govern only those successions that opened after these laws came into force.
Example 1: Father died in 1948 (ancestral property)
• Family: One son, one daughter
• Law applied: Mitakshara (old law)
• Result: Only the son inherits. The daughter cannot claim, even today.
Example 2: Father died in 1980 (ancestral property)
• Law applied: Hindu Succession Act, 1956
• Result: Son gets coparcenary rights. Daughter gets a share in father’s separate property but not equal rights in ancestral property.
Example 3: Father died in 2015 (ancestral property)
• Law applied: Hindu Succession Act with 2005 Amendment
• Result: Both son and daughter inherit equally as coparceners.
Example 4: Father died in 1945 with no sons (ancestral property)
• Law applied: Mitakshara (old law)
• Result: Daughters inherit because there are no male heirs.
The date of death decides everything. The inheritance law applicable when the father died determines the daughter’s rights — not the law in force when she files a case. Modern amendments cannot reopen successions that occurred before they existed.
Though this may appear unjust today, courts maintain that inheritance rights are fixed at the moment of death — once succession has opened, it cannot be altered by later legal reforms.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
