Bombay HC on Succession Law: Daughters' Rights Explained
Legal battles over inheritance aren’t just about property, they take a significant toll on mental health as well. Disputes like these often lead to long-standing family conflicts, emotional distress, and even severe psychological trauma. For daughters who feel deprived of their rightful inheritance, the experience can trigger feelings of rejection, anxiety, and grief.
The prolonged stress of litigation can also contribute to
- Depression
- Sleep disturbances
- Strained relationships within families
Introduction
The inheritance rights, under Hindu Law, which states that daughters cannot claim their deceased father’s property if the father expired before the Hindu Succession Act came into force in 1956, were further clarified by the Bombay High Court in a groundbreaking judgement. This refers to a case which questioned whether daughters had any legal rights to raise any claim on their father’s property before 1956, specifically if their deceased father left behind his wife as his legal heir.
Case history
The mentioned case was filed by Radhabai Shirke, to claim her inheritance in her deceased father’s property. Yeshwantrao was the father of Radhabai Shirke. He married Laxmibai and they had two daughters Sonubai and Radhabai. Laxmibai expired in 1930. The second time, he married Bhikubai and they had a daughter Champubai. Yeshwantrao expired in 1952. After his demise, his second wife Bhikubai continued to reside on her husband’s property till her death in 1973.
Late Bhikubai had executed a Will in favour of her daughter Champubai in respect of the property. Meanwhile, Radhabai, the daughter of his first wife filed a case for partition of her father’s property arguing that she, as his daughter, was entitled to half of the property. However, the trial court and subsequent appellate court dismissed her claim and ruled that Bhikubai was the exclusive inheritor as per the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, of 1937.
Arguments Presented in Court
Radhabai thereafter appealed in the High Court. Her counsel stated that his client’s claim to a share of her father’s property was based on the review of Hindu Law that may permit daughters to be co-inheritors with the surviving widow. Her counsel referred to previous judgements that the inheritance rights for daughters could be acknowledged even in cases before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into force.
On the other side, arguments of the counsel acting for Bhikubai’s legal heirs stated that the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 clearly stated that inheritance rights were solely with the widow of the deceased and not daughters.
The counsel further stated that daughters were not reviewed as coparceners under Hindu Law, before 1956, and therefore they had no legal rights whatsoever to raise any claims for inheriting their father’s property if their mother was alive. The further arguments stated that neither the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 nor its 2005 amendment [Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005], which recognised daughters having equal inheritance rights, could be considered w.r.t. cases where succession unfolded before 1956.
Bombay High Court's Verdict
A division bench comprising Justice A S Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain ratified the previous rulings against Radhabai, stating that as her father had died before the Hindu Succession Act, came into force, she did not have any inheritance rights whatsoever to his property.
The court upheld that the intent of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, of 1937 was to provide only limited rights to widows, and the widows were granted a “Hindu Woman’s Estate” with limited control, while specifically excluding daughters. Daughters were excluded as it was understood that daughters would marry and move to their matrimonial home, and therefore they were not considered to be claimants of their father’s property.
The term “son” as explicitly used in the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, of 1937, indicated the legislative purpose to limit inheritance rights to sons when a widow survived the father.
Why the 1956 Law Cannot Be Applied to Earlier Cases
The Hon’ble High Court further stated that the laws governing inheritance rights at the time of Yeshwantrao’s death were “frozen.” As a result, the provisions of the Succession Act of 1956, which granted inheritance rights to daughters, could not be applied to any succession cases before the date the law came into force.
Therefore, if a father died before the year 1956, when the Succession Act was formulated, then his daughters would not be entitled to any inheritance rights on his property.
It’s crucial to acknowledge the emotional and psychological burden that legal disputes impose. Seeking mental health support, practicing stress management techniques, and fostering open family communication can help individuals navigate the turmoil that often accompanies such cases. After all, justice isn’t just about legal rulings, it’s also about emotional well-being and finding peace after the verdict.
