Bilaspur, September 22 - In a significant reaffirmation of gender equality in inheritance, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that daughters have an equal right to ancestral property even if their father passed away before the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, while allowing a second appeal filed by Smt. Rajkumari Gupta and her sisters, set aside the lower appellate court’s decision that had curtailed their property share.
The ruling reinstated the 2015 judgment of the Raigarh trial court, which had granted the daughters one-fifth share each in their late father’s land.
Background
The dispute traces back to the family of late Mohno Kolta from Raigarh district. Mohno had two wives - Satya Bai and Lalo Bai - and children from both marriages. After his death in 1987–88, the property at Navapara village was mutated jointly in the names of all heirs, including the daughters.
However, the sons, Baishtam and Benudhar Kolta, allegedly divided the land without informing their half-sisters. Feeling deprived, Rajkumari Gupta and her siblings filed a suit seeking partition and possession, claiming equal rights as legal heirs.
The trial court agreed, holding the partition illegal and granting them 1/5th share each. But the first appellate court modified the decision, reasoning that since the father died before 2005, the daughters share would be restricted based on "notional partition" - a concept used to calculate inheritance under the earlier Hindu Succession Act of 1956.
Court's Observations
Justice Vyas revisited the issue through the lens of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the Supreme Court’s landmark judgments in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) and Prasanta Kumar Sahoo v. Charulata Sahu (2023).
"The daughters cannot be deprived of their right of equality conferred upon them by Section 6" the bench noted, emphasizing that coparcenary rights accrue by birth, not by the father’s survival at the time of amendment.
The court rejected the argument that since late Mohno died before 2005, his daughters could not claim coparcenary rights. Citing Vineeta Sharma, Justice Vyas observed:
"It is not necessary that the father should be living on the date of the amendment. The daughter becomes a coparcener by birth and has the same rights as the son."
The High Court also highlighted that no valid partition had ever occurred. The defendants failed to produce any registered partition deed or decree to support their claim. The alleged oral division, made without the daughters’ consent, was held to be a nullity in law.
"Merely recording names in revenue documents does not establish a lawful partition," the court remarked, terming the earlier appellate decision as "contrary to settled legal principles."
Decision
Concluding the 47-page judgment, Justice Vyas allowed the second appeal and restored the original trial court decree. The daughters were declared entitled to an equal one-fifth share each in the disputed property.
The ruling underscored that the principle of equality between sons and daughters under the Hindu Succession Act applies even when the father’s death preceded the 2005 amendment - provided that no partition was finalized before December 20, 2004.
"The partition claimed by the defendants without consent or information of the plaintiffs is void in the eyes of law," the judgment held. The trial court’s order granting the daughters separate possession of their share was reinstated.
With this, the court not only resolved a long-standing family dispute but also reiterated a vital constitutional promise - that equality in inheritance cannot depend on the date of one’s father's death.
Case Title:- Smt. Rajkumari Gupta & Others vs Baishtam @ Vaishtam Kolta & Others
Case Number:- Second Appeal (SA) No. 575 of 2017
Counsel Appeared:
- For Appellants: Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate
- For Respondents (1 to 3): Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Sameer Oraon, Advocates
- For State: Mr. K.L. Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate
Important Dates:
- Reserved on: 01 July 2025
- Pronounced on: 22 September 2025