Hindu Succession Act Not Applicable To Succession Matters Prior To 1956: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Exclusion Of Daughter From Inheritance
The High Court has reiterated that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not apply to successions that opened before its commencement, holding that in such cases, property devolves strictly according to the Mitakshara law in force at the time of the owner’s death.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which codified and reformed Hindu inheritance law, cannot be applied retrospectively to cases where the last male holder of property died before the Act came into force.
The Court was hearing a second appeal filed by the legal representatives of a deceased woman who claimed a share in her father’s property, asserting that she was entitled to inheritance under the reformed provisions of Hindu succession.
A Single Bench comprising Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, while referring to Arunchala Gounder vs. Ponnusamy, observed that “from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunachala Gounder’s case (supra), it is quite vivid, that Mitakshara Law of inheritance applicable to a person who died before 1956 and who was governed by the pristine Mitakshara law, the wife or daughter of a male would inherit his separate property only if he died without a male child..”
The appellant was represented by Advocate Rahul Kumar Mishra, while Advocate Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer, represented the respondents.
Background
The case concerned agricultural land originally owned by a man who passed away before 1956. His daughter later instituted a suit for declaration and partition, claiming that she was entitled to a share in the ancestral property inherited by her brother.
According to the appellant, her brother had unlawfully mutated the property in his own name and subsequently transferred it to his daughter.
However, both the trial court and the first appellate court rejected the claim, holding that since Sudhin had died before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, succession was governed by the uncodified Mitakshara law, which recognised only the son as the heir when a male issue survived.
Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant approached the High Court in a second appeal, arguing that as the litigation arose after 1956, the reformed statutory scheme of succession should be applied.
Court’s Observation
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, ruling that the law applicable to inheritance is determined by the date of death of the property holder, not by the date of adjudication. The Court observed that since the owner had died before 1956, the property vested immediately in his son, and no subsequent legislation could divest that vested right.
Citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur(2020), the Court reiterated that “succession to the property of a Hindu male dying intestate before 1956 is governed by the uncodified Hindu law, and the 1956 Act has no retrospective effect.”
The High Court further relied on Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (2022) to explain that the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, merely enlarged the circle of heirs in default of male issue by introducing certain female heirs but did not curtail the son’s absolute right to inherit.
In reaffirming this position, the Bench held that “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.”
Conclusion
Dismissing the appeal, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that both the trial and appellate courts had correctly applied the Mitakshara principles of succession and found that the daughter had no inheritable right in the property.
Cause Title: Ragmania (Deceased) Through LRs Kariman Das v. Jagmet & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:50803)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocate Rahul Kumar Mishra
Respondents: Advocate Divyanand Patel and Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer for State
