Daughters are ineligible to inherit under Mitakshara Law prior to 1956, affirming that property succession is limited to male heirs in such cases.

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 2^nd 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 pleaded that since Sudhinram died in the year 1950-51, therefore, the appellant and the defendants with regard to successi