Daughters Cannot Inherit Property If Their Father Died Before 1956, Rules High Court

Last Updated:October 24, 2025, 13:31 IST

The court cited Supreme Court rulings in Arshnoor Singh vs Harpal Kaur (2020) and Arunachala Gounder vs Ponnusamy (2022), confirming pre-1956 property goes only to male heirs

Since Raghmaniya's father had died before 1956, leaving behind a son, the court concluded that she had no claim to the property. (Representative/News18 Hindi)

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently delivered a significant verdict clarifying the legal position concerning property disputes. The court ruled that if a father passed away before 1956, his daughter would not be entitled to any share of his property.

This ruling is rooted in the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which granted daughters equal rights in ancestral property. However, for cases predating this law, the Mitakshara Law applies, recognising only sons as heirs.

The case in question involved Raghmaniya from Sarguja district, who filed a civil suit in 2005 seeking a portion of her father’s ancestral property. Her father, Sudhin, had died around 1950-51. Despite her claim to be the legal heir, both the lower court and the appellate court dismissed her petition.

On October 13, Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas’s bench upheld these decisions, stating that if a Hindu man governed by Mitakshara Law dies before 1956, his property will go solely to his son. The daughter would only inherit if there were no sons.

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, while delivering the verdict in the case of Ragmania (deceased) through LRs Kariman Das vs Jagmet and others, upheld the rulings of the lower and appellate courts, which had rejected the plaintiff’s claim to a share in ancestral property located in Surguja district, Chhattisgarh, The Times of India reported.

The court noted, “When a Hindu governed by Mitakshara Law died before 1956, his separate property would completely devolve upon his son. A female child could claim a right in such property only in the absence of a male child."

The court referenced two significant Supreme Court decisions, Arshnoor Singh vs Harpal Kaur (2020) and Arunachala Gounder vs Ponnusamy (2022), which affirmed that property inherited before 1956 would go exclusively to male heirs.

According to The Times of India report, the high court said “succession having opened prior to 1956, the parties are governed by the Mitakshara Law and not by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956."

Since Raghmaniya’s father had died before 1956, leaving behind a son, the court concluded that she had no claim to the property.

“When a Hindu governed by Mitakshara Law died before 1956, his separate property would devolve completely upon his son. A female child could claim a right in such property only in the absence of a male child," Justice Vyas was quoted as saying in the report.

The court noted that since it was undisputed that Sudhin passed away before 1956 and left behind a son, the plaintiff had no claim to the property. It affirmed that the trial and appellate courts had correctly applied the law in rejecting the suit, and the appeal was dismissed.

This verdict illuminates the legal framework for cases where daughters claim their father’s property from before 1956, emphasising that their rights do not apply in such instances.

News india Daughters Cannot Inherit Property If Their Father Died Before 1956, Rules High Court

Read More