Chhattisgarh High Court: Daughters Cannot Claim Father’s Property If He Died Before 1956

Verdict Reinforces Mitakshara Law in Pre-Hindu Succession Act Cases

In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that daughters cannot claim a share in their father’s property if he passed away before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The court stated that in such cases, the Mitakshara law applies, under which inheritance is restricted to male heirs except when no male descendants exist.

The Case: Ragmania vs. Jagmet and Others

The order, delivered by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas on October 13, came in the case titled Ragmania (deceased) through her legal representative Kariman Das vs. Jagmet and Others.

Ragmania had filed a civil suit in 2005 seeking one-third share of her late father Sudhin’s ancestral property in Surguja district. Sudhin had died around 1950–51, years before the Hindu Succession Act came into effect.

Both the trial court and the appellate court had dismissed her petition, ruling that the Act cannot be applied retrospectively to deaths that occurred before 1956.

Legal Reasoning and Court’s Observation

While upholding the lower courts’ judgments, the High Court relied on precedents set by the Supreme Court in Arshnur Singh vs. Harpal Kaur (2020) and Arunachalam Gounder vs. Ponnusamy (2022).

The court observed that, under Mitakshara law, ancestral property devolved only upon male heirs by birth prior to 1956. Since Sudhin had a son, the daughter had no legal right to claim a share in the property.

Justice Vyas noted that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, fundamentally changed inheritance rights, granting daughters equal rights in property — but those provisions cannot be applied retroactively to deaths occurring before the law’s commencement.

Gender Equality Debate Rekindled

The judgment has reignited discussions on gender equality in property rights and the slow evolution of inheritance laws in India.

Legal experts note that while modern legislation has made inheritance more equitable, historical cases still face limitations due to the non-retrospective nature of reforms. The ruling serves as a reminder of the disparities faced by women in pre-1956 Hindu law and the continuing need for legal awareness and reform.

Broader Implications

This verdict reinforces the judicial position that statutory rights cannot be applied retrospectively unless explicitly mentioned in the law. It also emphasizes the distinct legal framework governing succession before and after 1956, underlining the transformative role the Hindu Succession Act played in shaping property rights for women in India.