Daughter Has No Right In Her Deceased Father’s Property If He Had Died Before 1956, Leaving Behind Both Widow & Daughter: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has held that a daughter would not have any right in her deceased father’s property if he had died before 1956, leaving behind both a widow and a daughter.
The Court had to determine whether, before the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 came into effect, a daughter could inherit any rights, limited or absolute, in her deceased father’s property if he had died before 1956, leaving behind both a widow and a daughter.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain held, “In view of above, we answer the question referred to us by holding that a daughter would not have any right, either limited or absolute, by inheritance prior to coming into force of the Act of 1956 in the property of her deceased father who died prior to 1956 leaving behind him in addition to such daughter, his widow as well.”
Senior Advocate Ram S. Apte appeared for the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni represented the Respondents.
The daughter from the father’s first marriage had filed a suit claiming half of her father’s properties. However, the trial court dismissed her claim stating that under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, only the widow could inherit the property thereby becoming the absolute owner in 1956.
The Court referred to the provision of Section 3(1) of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, which provides that “his widow, or if there is more than one widow, all his widows together, shall… be entitled… to the same share as a son.”
The Bench noted that the provision does not provide for any inheritance right in favour of the daughter and that “if the legislature, while enacting the Act of 1937, intended to give inheritance right to a daughter, same would have been provided so in Section 3.”
In addressing this reference, the Court stated that “we have to put ourselves to the era of pre-1956 and Pre-Independence period since we are called upon to decide an inheritance right which opened on the death of a male member of a family who died prior to 1956.”
The Court referred to “the Notes on Clauses while introducing Bill No.XIII of 1954 to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus,” which enacted the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and noted that “for the first time, a daughter would be added in Class I of the preferential heirs in the Schedule to the existing list of simultaneous heirs.”
The Court also observed, “We are conscious that the views expressed by experts in their Commentaries on the subject of inheritance should not be read as a statute but same can certainly be referred to ascertain the practice prevailing during the period prior to the law being codified on inheritance.”
Cause Title: Radhabai Balasaheb Shirke (D) & Ors. v. Keshav Ramchandra Jadhav & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:43314)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Ram S. Apte; Advocates S. G. Deshmukh, Uday B. Nighot, Sulajja Patil, Mayuresh Lagu and Sagat Patil
Respondents: Senior Advocate Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni; Advocates Drupad Patil, Rutuja Ambekar, Namit Pansare, Rugved Kinkar, Srushti Chalke, Abhijit B. Kadam, Ashish Chavan, Sarthak S. Diwan, Manoj Badgujar, Sneha S. Bhange, R. M. Haridas, Pratik Rahade, Somnath Thengal, Sumeet Khaire and Anil Shitole
