Daughters have no legal claim in property if their father died before 1956

If your father or grandfather died before 1956, you may not be entitled to claim a share in his property under the current law - even if you file a claim today.

A recent judgment by the Chhattisgarh High Court has drawn attention to a key nuance in inheritance laws: a daughter cannot claim a share in her father’s separate or ancestral property if the ‘succession opened’ before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA) came into force and a male heir exists. 

 

That means if your father — or grandfather — died before 1956, your inheritance rights as a daughter may simply not exist under the modern equality-based law.

 

What the Court Ruled

 

In the case of Ragmania (Deceased) through LRs vs Jagmet & Others, the plaintiff, Ragmania, claimed a share in her late father’s ancestral property. But her father had died around 1950–51 — before the HSA.

 

The High Court dismissed her claim, noting that succession to the property had “opened” in 1950–51, and therefore the older Mitakshara Law applied. Under that law, only male heirs — sons — could inherit property, unless there were none.

 

The property thus fully devolved upon Ragmania’s brother. Both the trial and appellate courts had already rejected her case, and now the High Court confirmed it — ruling that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply retroactively to deaths before 1956.

 

"The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that daughters cannot claim a share in their father’s ancestral property if the succession opened before 1956, the year the Hindu Succession Act came into force. The court applied the Mitakshara Law, under which only male heirs could inherit property unless there were no sons. In this case, Ragmania’s father died around 1950–51, so his property fully devolved upon his son. Both the trial and appellate courts, and now the High Court, dismissed Ragmania’s claim, confirming that the Hindu Succession Act does not apply retroactively to pre-1956 deaths," said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.

 

What this means: 

• If a father died before 1956, daughters cannot claim a share in his property unless there were no sons. 
• The Hindu Succession Act, which now allows equal rights for daughters, does not apply to successions that opened before 1956; such cases are governed by the Mitakshara Law, which favored male heirs. 
• The High Court reaffirmed this position and relied on established legal precedents. 
• Therefore, daughters’ inheritance rights arise only if the father passed away after 1956 or if no male heirs existed at the time of his death.

 

The Law Behind the Verdict

 

The court’s reasoning was simple but decisive: property succession is governed by the law in force when the ancestor died.

 

As Shashank Agarwal, Founder of Legum Solis, explained: By this judgment, the Court reaffirmed that property succession is governed by the law in force at the time of the ancestor’s death. Since the plaintiff’s father had died before 1956—prior to the Hindu Succession Act—the Court applied the old Mitakshara Hindu law, under which daughters could inherit only in the absence of sons. As the deceased had a son, the daughter’s claim to the ancestral land was rejected. The judgment underscores how the timing of a death can decisively affect inheritance rights under Hindu law.

 

In essence, even if a daughter files a claim decades later, the clock doesn’t reset — what matters is the year of the father’s death, not when the claim is made.

 

Kiran Devrani, Advocate, Delhi High Court, added crucial context about why even earlier reforms didn’t change much:

 

“The 1929 Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act introduced certain female heirs like the son’s daughter or sister into the line of succession, but only if no male heir existed. So even before 1956, female inheritance rights were minimal — they didn’t affect the son’s absolute right to inherit.”

 

Why This Matters for Families Today

 

This ruling has real consequences for inheritance disputes that surface generations later.

Even if daughters today enjoy equal coparcenary rights under the amended HSA (2005), those rights don’t apply retroactively to pre-1956 successions.

 

For example:

 

• If a grandfather died in 1950, and the property passed to his sons, a granddaughter or daughter cannot reopen that claim today.

•  

If the death occurred after 1956 (but before 2005), daughters still may have limited rights unless the property was undivided and succession not completed.

 

This means families must trace dates, documents, and laws before assuming modern equality automatically applies.