The Chhattisgarh High Court has once again underlined that daughters have the same coparcenary rights as sons in ancestral property, ruling that alleged oral partitions cannot be used to deny women their lawful share under the Hindu Succession Act.
The judgment was delivered in a second appeal filed by Amrika Bai, who had challenged earlier court decisions dismissing her suit for partition of ancestral agricultural land in Rajnandgaon district. Amrika Bai argued that her father, Dhanuk Lodhi, had transferred substantial portions of the family’s ancestral land to his sons from a second marriage while restricting the share available to his daughters.
She maintained that the property was ancestral in nature and that, as a daughter, she was entitled to an equal share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Amrika Bai also contended that the lower courts had wrongly relied on claims of an oral partition said to have taken place before the statutory cut-off date of 20 December 2004.
Both the trial court and the first appellate court had rejected her claim, accepting the defence argument that an earlier family arrangement was protected under the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. According to the defendants, Amrika Bai had already received land and part of a house during her father’s lifetime, which they claimed amounted to a valid partition.
However, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru disagreed with this view. The High Court observed that the proviso to Section 6 strictly limits protection to partitions effected through a registered instrument or by a decree of a competent court. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Court held that pleas of oral partition, unsupported by public documents or legal formalities, have no legal force and cannot defeat a daughter’s statutory rights.
The Court further clarified that even if land had been given to Amrika Bai for residence or maintenance, such an arrangement could not be treated as a lawful or final partition of coparcenary property. In the absence of a legally recognised partition prior to the cut-off date, the daughter continued to be a coparcener by birth, with rights equal to those of a son.
The High Court also rejected the defendants’ claim that Amrika Bai’s parents had undergone a customary divorce, noting that no evidence was produced to prove the existence or validity of such a custom.
Allowing the second appeal, the Court set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the first appellate court. Amrika Bai was declared entitled to her lawful share in the ancestral property, and the trial court was directed to draw up a decree accordingly.
The ruling reinforces that gender equality in inheritance law is substantive and enforceable, and that informal family arrangements cannot override the clear statutory rights granted to daughters under the amended succession law.
