Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Ragmania Died Through Lrs Kariman Das S/o Sunder Das – Appellant
Versus
Jagmet S/o Baigadas – Respondent
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 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 b
Daughters are ineligible to inherit under Mitakshara Law prior to 1956, affirming that property succession is limited to male heirs in such cases.
(1) If a property of a male Hindu dying intestate is a self-acquired property or obtained in partition of a coparcenary or a family property, same would devolve by inheritance and not by survivorship....
The court affirmed that under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters do not inherit coparcenary property prior to the 2005 amendment, and the plaintiff's title was upheld against the defendant's claims.
The Hindu Succession Act's provisions do not apply retrospectively to successions that occurred before its enactment, precluding daughters from inheriting property from fathers who died before 1956.
Daughters are barred from inheriting from their father if succession opened prior to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which does not retroactively apply.
Under Mitakshara law, self-acquired property of a male who died before 1956 devolves solely upon male heirs; female heirs succeed only in absence of male descendants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Central enactment prevails over the State law, and the daughters, including those married prior to 1994, are entitled to an equal share in....
The properties in question were determined to be ancestral, granting coparcenary rights to the daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
