Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has ruled that a daughter does not have any inheritance rights, either limited or absolute, in the property of her deceased father if he passed away before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into effect, leaving behind a widow and a daughter.
A bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain decided the issue nearly 20 years after the matter was referred to a division bench in 2007 following conflicting views by two single-judge benches. The division bench was asked to decide whether a daughter could inherit any rights in her father’s property if he died before 1956, leaving behind both a widow and a daughter.
About The Case
The matter involved a family dispute over the estate of a man, who had two wives. From his first marriage, he had two daughters, and from his second marriage, he had a daughter. His first wife predeceased him in 1930. The man passed away on June 10, 1952, followed by his daughter from his first wife in 1949. The second wife, the surviving widow, died on July 8, 1973, leaving a will dated August 14, 1956, in favour of her daughter.
His second daughter from his first marriage filed a suit claiming half of her father’s property and seeking its partition. However, the trial court dismissed her claim, stating that the second wife inherited the entire estate under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, and became the absolute owner of the property following the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Her appeal was also dismissed, prompting her to file a second appeal before the High Court.
While deciding the issue, the bench emphasised the need to consider the legal framework of the pre-1956 era, including pre-Independence laws, to determine whether a daughter had inheritance rights when her father passed away before 1956, leaving behind a widow but no son.
The second daughter’s counsels contended that daughters should have inheritance rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. They argued that the term “son” in the 1937 Act should be interpreted to include daughters as well.
However, the counsel for the daughter from the second marriage, who inherited the property, argued that daughters had no inheritance rights in their father’s property if he died before 1956, based on the provisions of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937.
Conclusion Made By The Division Bench
The division bench concluded that the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, did not grant any inheritance rights to daughters, as the legislation explicitly referred to “sons” without any provision for daughters. The court held that if the legislature had intended to include daughters, it would have expressly done so.
The bench further clarified that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which includes daughters as Class I heirs, could not be applied retrospectively. Since the man passed away before the 1956 Act came into force, his estate devolved according to the laws existing at the time of his death, which did not recognize daughters as heirs if a widow survived.
The matter is now referred back to a single judge for a decision on the remaining merits of the Second Appeals.
