Chhattisgarh News: Chhattisgarh High Court has taken a historic decision regarding Hindu Succession Law, which has provided new clarity regarding the property rights of daughters under Mitakshara law. The court said that if a Hindu father died before the implementation of the Hindu Succession Act in 1956 and if his sons were alive, the daughter would not be given any right in the father’s property. This Phalsa also clearly states the rights of the daughter in the absence of a son.
What was the whole matter?
This case is from Surguja district, where a woman had claimed participation in her father’s property. Both the appellant and the respondent were brothers and sisters. After the death of the father, the brother applied for the mutation of the property, to which the sister strongly objected. However, the court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Surguja rejected the claim outright, saying that the father had died before the year 1956, when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not in force. Therefore, the benefit of the amendment of 2005 cannot be availed by the appellant.
Historic hearing held in court
The woman filed an appeal against this decision, but the court of Additional District Judge also upheld the decision of the civil judge. After this the matter reached the High Court, where a single bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas heard it in detail. The Court found that the father died between 1950-51, i.e. before 1956. According to this, the court held that the matter falls within the ambit of Mitakshara law and not the Succession Act of 1956.
What does Mitakshara law say?
According to Mitakshara law, self-acquired property of a man is transferred only to his male descendants. Only when there are no male descendants can other heirs, such as a wife or daughter, claim the property. In this ancient law, daughters were not given equal rights to property, which was later added by the amendments of 1956 and 2005.
Also quoting the decisions of the Supreme Court
The High Court made detailed reference to the Arshanur Singh vs. Harpal Kaur (2019) and Arunachal Gounder vs. Ponnusamy cases and said that the Hindu Succession Law (Amendment) Act, 1929 was not intended to change the basic concepts of ancient Mitakshara law. It only included some female heirs in the absence of a male child, but did not affect the rights of a son.
What did the court comment?
The High Court said, “If a Hindu father has died before the year 1956 and he comes under Mitakshara law, his property will go entirely to his son. The daughter will be entitled only if there is no male child in the family.”
final decision
The court said that the claim of the appellant is not legally sustainable and the daughters cannot get the right to the property in the succession dispute that took place before the year 1956. Thus, the Chhattisgarh High Court has made it clear that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or its subsequent amendments will not apply to deaths before 1956.
This decision will set a precedent for all cases in which succession disputes date back to before 1956 and in which property rights are claimed by daughters.
