Back
2025 Supreme(Chh) 229
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Smt. Ragmania Died Through Lrs Kariman Das S/o Sunder Das – Appellant
Versus
Jagmet S/o Baigadas – Respondent
SA No. 178 of 2014
Decided On : 13-10-2025
For Appellant(s) :Mr. Rahul Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent(s):Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Panel Lawyer
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not retroactively apply to property inherited under Mitakshara Law prior to its enactment; daughters inherit only in the absence of male heirs, reinforcing conventional inheritance structures.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (amended 2005) - Determination of property entitlements for inheritance - Courts found the plaintiff ineligible for ancestral property due to the death of her father before the Act's enactment - Key legal issue concerns the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act and the determination of inheritance rights under the Mitakshara Law according to established legal frameworks. (Paras 3, 12-30)
(B) Inheritance Rights - Mitakshara Law - Daughters could only inherit paternal property in absence of male heirs under the ancestral property framework - The court ruled that the Succession Act does not apply retroactively to exclude rights established under prior law - Recognition of property inheritance was deemed essential for legal entitlement under applicable statutes. (Paras 19-30)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and partition of land following the denial of her claim to inherit property post her father’s demise in the 1950s, primarily arguing the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 against the respondent's counterclaim of inheritance governed by earlier legal precedents. (Paras 5-8)
Findings of Court:
The trial court and appellate court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit determining that inheritance rights were governed by the principles of Mitakshara law due to the plaintiff’s father dying before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; hence, the property was not partible under modern inheritance laws. (Paras 12, 30)
Issues: Whether the findings regarding the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act and the plaintiff's entitlement to inheritance were justified in the context of historical law precedents and the circumstances surrounding the suit. (Paras 3, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Mitakshara law governs inheritance where the father predeceased the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, confirming that the plaintiff's rights were limited under pre-existing legal frameworks. Substantial evidence showed that the plaintiff could claim rights only if there were no male heirs. (Paras 19-30)
Result: The appeal is dismissed.
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. second appeal procedure and questions of law. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. (Para 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 3. arguments on inheritance rights of daughters. (Para 13 , 14 , 28) |
| 4. application of mitakshara law based on the date of death. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 30) |
| 5. clarification of inheritance under hindu law and its amendments. (Para 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. final conclusion on appeal dismissal. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2014 2025.10.13 +0530 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Sarguja, Ambikapur in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/2011 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2008 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Surguja in Civil Suit No. 181-A /2005.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status shown in the Civil suit No. 181-A /2005 before the trial Court.
3. This appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law on 02.04.2025;-
“(1) Whether the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff is not entitiled to inherent ancestral property ignoring the provisions of Hindu Succession Act amended in the year 2005 is justified or not?
“(2) Whether the finding recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiff and the defendant are not governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is justified or not?
4. On 15.07.2025 additional substantial question of law was also framed by this Court which is as under:-
“Whether the plaintiff is entitiled to inherit the suit property by way of succession if the partition has been taken place prior to 1956?
5. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal, in short are that the plaintiff had instituted a civil suit on 06.10.2005 for declaration of title and partition in respect of suit land described in Schedule-A of the plaint mainly contending that:-
(a) The plaintiff and father of defendant No.1 namely Baigadas were real brother and sister and they are being governed by Hindu Law. The genealogy of the family was also mentioned in the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that the lands situated at village Putputara, after merger of Surguja State were recorded in the name of grandfather of plaintiff namely Sudhin and his brother Budhau (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”.) and they were jointly cultivating the land.
b) It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 father during his life time has moved an application before Nayab Tahsildar Tahsil Ambikapur for partition of the property in favour of her daughter Jagmat. As soon as the plaintiff got information about filing of application through paper publication in the village, she has appeared before Tahsildar and raised objection in Revenue Case No. 13-A-27/2002-03 and has prayed for recording her name. It is also case of the plaintiff, that father of defendant No.1 has admitted that the plaintiff is his sister but has contended that she has no right to claim share on the suit property after her marriage. The Tahsildar considering the submission has rejected the application of the plaintiff for mutating her name also on 23.08.2003 which has necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit.
6. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the allegation made in the plaint contending that a patta of khasra No. 13, area 6.85 acres was received by the plaintiff's father and his brother Budhau during Sarguja Survey Settlement. It is also contended that the plaintiff has never been in possession of any part of the suit land and after death of Sudhinram, the plaintiff did not have any title or right over the suit lands, as such name of the plaintiff was not recorded in the revenue records. It is also contended that Baigadas inherited property in succession as Sudhinram died in the year 1950-51 and remained in the possession of the suit land, therefore, plaintiff has no right and share in the suit land. It is also p
