Daughters can't claim a share in father's property if...: HC lays down key condition for inheritance

The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that a daughter cannot claim a share in her father’s property if the succession began before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The court said in such cases, inheritance is governed by Mitakshara Law, under which a daughter inherits only if there is no male heir, a TOI report stated.

The judgment was delivered on October 13 by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas in the case of Ragmania (deceased) through LRs Kariman Das vs Jagmet and others. The court upheld the decisions of the lower courts that had dismissed Ragmania’s claim for a share in her late father’s ancestral property in Surguja district.

Mitakshara Law applies to pre-1956 deaths

The court explained, “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.”


Ragmania had filed a civil suit in 2005 seeking a declaration of title and partition, claiming that she was entitled to inherit the property of her father, Sudhin, who died around 1950–51. Both the trial and appellate courts rejected her claim, holding that the Hindu Succession Act did not apply to deaths that occurred before 1956.

High Court reaffirms lower court decisions

The High Court reaffirmed that “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.” The court also cited Supreme Court precedents, including Arshnoor Singh vs Harpal Kaur (2020) and Arunachala Gounder vs Ponnusamy (2022), noting that under Mitakshara Law, property inherited by a male Hindu before 1956 passed only to male heirs.

Justice Vyas added, “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.”

The court concluded that since Sudhin was survived by a son, Ragmania was not entitled to a share in the property. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the application of Mitakshara Law by the lower courts.