Hindu Succession Act | Daughters Entitled To An Equal Share In Property Inherited By Their Parents: Chhattisgarh High Court Reiterates

The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that as per Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, the daughters are also entitled to get an equal share in the property inherited by their parents. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas referred to the case of  Vinita Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., where it was held that,

"It is by birth that interest in the property is acquired. Devolution on the death of a coparcener before 1956 used to be only by survivorship. After 1956, women could also inherit in exigencies, mentioned in the proviso to unamended section 6. Now by legal fiction, daughters are treated as coparceners. No one is made a coparcener by devolution of interest. It is by virtue of birth or by way of adoption obviously within the permissible degrees; a person is to be treated as coparcener and not otherwise."

Background

The case pertained to self-acquired property of one Kachra Bai, mother of Appellants (defendants No.1 to 3 in the original suit) and the Respondent (plaintiff in original suit).

Following her death, the property was acquired by the plaintiff at the strength of a Will and he filed a suit for for declaration and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession.

The defendants had disputed the legality of the Will and filed their counter claim, claiming that the plaintiff has no right to succeed in the property as per Mitakshara Branch of Hindu Law, the daughters are also entitled to get share in the property. They submitted that the suit land is an ancestral property as such they are also coparcener in the suit land.

The Trial Court rejected the counter claim of the defendants for partition of suit and passed a decree declaring the plaintiff to be title holder of the suit land, restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession.

Findings of the Court

The two issues before the Court are: (i) whether the will have been proved as per the provisions of section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act; (ii) Whether the defendants are entitled to get an equal share of the suit land being coparcener as per Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

The Court doubted over the genuineness of the will base on the following points: (a) no evidence is on record to show that the testatrix has put her signature on the will in the presence of the witnesses; (b) no evidence endorses that the will have been written on the instruction of the testatrix; and (c) the Revenue Court where the mutation took place was aware of the facts that the sisters are still surviving.

The Court held that while deciding the veracity of the will, the trial court examined only one witness, which cannot be seen as the correct application of the law. It noted that the propounder has to show that the testator signed the will and that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at that time. It observed,

"It is for the propounder to establish that testator had understood nature and effect of disposition and put his signature/ thumb impression on his own free will. In absence of such evidence brought on record by the plaintiff it cannot be said that 10 the plaintiff has cleared doubt over the will."

Referring to a catena of judicial precedents, the Court noted that the validity of the will is not proved in accordance with the provisions of the law and suspicious circumstances are available on record which the plaintiff has not cleared by placing material on record. Therefore, it set aside the judgment and decree so far as it held the plaintiff as the owner of the suit land.

Since the Court held that Will is not valid, it proceeded to examine the counter claim filed by the defendants (Appellants). On doing so, it noted,

"Since the plaintiff and defendants are coparcener of the joint Hindu family property, as per Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, the daughters are also entitled for getting equal share in the property inherited by their parents. The suit land is inherited by deceased Kachra Bai, as such defendants and plaintiff are entitled to get equal share in the property as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005."

Deceased Kachra Bai inherits the suit land; as such, defendants and plaintiff are entitled to get equal share in the property as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005.

Case Title: Smt. Sonia Bai & Ors v. Dashrath Sahu & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 18

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order