The rights of daughters in ancestral property have evolved significantly under Hindu law, particularly after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. A recent judgment by the Bombay High Court sheds light on these rights, emphasizing the protection available to daughters, especially those who are widowed, deserted, or destitute.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolved around a property originally owned by Natha, who passed it down to his sons, Rama and Chandar. Rama’s daughters (defendants) claimed residence rights in the property, while the plaintiff, Laxman’s widow, sought possession, arguing the defendants were mere licensees. The court examined whether the daughters’ rights were protected under Sections 14 and 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Key Legal Principles
1. Pre-1956 Rights:
Before the 1956 Act, Hindu law recognized a father’s moral obligation to maintain unmarried or destitute daughters. Though not legally enforceable, this obligation was acknowledged by courts. If a father allotted property for maintenance, it created a limited interest for the daughter.
2. Section 14: Absolute Ownership
The court highlighted Section 14, which converts limited rights of Hindu women into absolute ownership. The provision applies retrospectively, meaning any property possessed by a woman before or after 1956, including for maintenance, becomes her absolute property.
"Any property possessed by a female Hindu... shall be held by her as full owner and not as a limited owner." - Supreme Court in V. Tulassam vs Sesha Reddy
3. Section 23: Right of Residence
Section 23 (now omitted) protected female heirs’ residence rights in ancestral dwelling houses. Unmarried, widowed, or deserted daughters could reside in the property until male heirs partitioned it.
4. Post-1956 Inheritance Rights
If the father died after 1956, daughters as Class I heirs were entitled to equal shares in the property. The court noted that even pre-1956 rights crystallized into absolute ownership post-enactment.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the daughters, holding:
- Their residence rights, established before 1956, were protected under Section 14.
- The plaintiff’s claim of gratuitous license was dismissed as the defendants’ possession predated Laxman’s ownership.
- Moral obligations of the father translated into legal rights under the 1956 Act.
Case Title: Anusaya Baburao Kale & Ors. vs. Babai Laxman Chorge (Deceased) thr. LRs & Anr.
Case No.: Second Appeal No. 296 of 1993