The Chhattisgarh High Court on October 13, 2025, heard a second appeal by a daughter who claimed her deceased father’s property and alleged it to be ancestral. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas dismissed the appeal, observing that the matter fell under Mitakshara Law and the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, which neither granted daughters the same rights as sons nor recognized them as having an equal status in inheritance.
The case arose when the appellant sought a declaration of title and permanent injunction over an agricultural land in Puhputra village in Surguja district. She claimed that since the land was ancestral property inherited from her father, she was entitled to a rightful share as one of his heirs. The respondent contested this claim, asserting that the property was self-acquired by their father who had exclusive possession and ownership until his death. He further contended that after their father’s demise, the property was passed solely to him as the male heir, and that the plaintiff had already received her due share during an earlier family partition. The appellant failed to substantiate her claim of ownership or possession before the Trial Court who dismissed the suit holding that the property was not part of the joint family estate. Another appeal was filed by the aggrieved appellant who stated that the lower Court had misread the evidence and had also failed to recognise the joint family character of the property. But the Appellant Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, concluding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the ancestral nature of the land. The appellant’s counsel before the Court, argued that both lower courts had erred in evaluating the evidence and that the property had clearly passed from the respondent’s father making it ancestral.
The Court observed that the father of both the appellant and respondent had passed away in 1950-51, prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which did not apply to the current case. Therefore, the Court referred to Arunchala Gounder(Dead) By Lrs vs. Ponnusamy & Ors 2022(11) SCC 520 and stated that under the principles of Mitakshara law, a daughter could inherit property only in the absence of a male heir, which did not apply in this case since the respondent was the surviving son of the deceased father, and as such, the entire property rightly passed to him.The Court therefore held that both the lower Court had reached their decision based on proper evidence and facts and found no reason for interference. The Court also affirmed that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit property and accordingly dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s)- Mr. Rahul Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate (R1 and R2), Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer for the State
