1.My mother was married in 1951, and her father expired in 1955, her father had self acquired property of 5 acres and 23 guntas. Their family consisted of mother , Son-1 ,unmarried daughter -2 ,married daughter-6. 2. Mother expired on1984. 3. on 02/11/95 the partition deed was executed by son , without obtaning the signature of all other daughters. 4. Suit filed in 23/04/2014 seeking partition and separate possession of 1/9 th share. 5. The suit was filed making claims under Sec 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 6. Suit was dismissed 13/09/2017 stating that section 8 is in applicable to the case . 7. Subsequently RFA was filed in KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN 2017. 8. My mother expired on 30 june 2024, then i along with by brother and sister filed legal heirs . 9. Is my mother entitled the share of self acquired property of her father, under what clause , and are there supreme court judgements pertaning to this .
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
because her father died in 1955, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into effect. The property's distribution would have been governed by the laws in place at the time of death, which did not grant daughters an automatic right to inherit self-acquired property in the same way sons did.
Yes she has equal share in the self acquired property of her father unless he has some will
Your mother was legally entitled to a share in her father’s self-acquired property, even though he died in 1955, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The trial court was correct in saying that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act does not apply, because the Act had not yet been enacted when your grandfather passed away. However, the conclusion that daughters had no right is legally incorrect, because succession in 1955 was governed by Mitakshara Hindu law, under which a daughter was an heir to her father’s self-acquired property along with the widow and sons.
Since the property was not ancestral or coparcenary property but self-acquired property, the principle of survivorship did not apply. The moment your grandfather died in 1955, the property devolved by succession and each heir became entitled to an undivided share. At that time, the Class-I heirs were: the widow, the son, two unmarried daughters, and six married daughters — making a total of nine heirs. Each heir therefore inherited one-ninth (1/9th) share. Your mother’s share was validly created the moment her father died, and it did not depend on the coming into force of the 1956 Act.
Your uncle’s unilateral partition deed dated 02.11.1995 is not legally binding on your mother because it was executed without her signature or consent. Any partition that excludes a co-sharer without authority is voidable and can be challenged, which is exactly what the 2014 suit attempted to do. The suit was dismissed only because it relied on the wrong statutory provision, not because your mother had no legal right. The appeal before the Karnataka High Court is the correct remedy, and the legal position in your favour is supported by multiple Supreme Court rulings.
Some important judgments supporting your mother’s right include:
Now that your mother has passed away in June 2024, her one-ninth share devolves on her legal heirs, and the appeal continues in your names. Her right did not lapse merely because she delayed asserting it; a co-sharer can sue for partition at any time until there is a lawful exclusion or ouster.
In the High Court, you will need to argue that (1) the trial court wrongly applied Section 8 instead of applying pre-1956 Mitakshara succession, (2) the daughter’s right to inherit existed by birth of succession in 1955, and (3) the 1995 partition deed is invalid as it excluded a necessary heir.
If you would like, I can prepare a written note of arguments for the RFA, including the list of Supreme Court authorities and an explanation of why limitation does not bar the claim. Please confirm if you would like me to draft it.
Your maternal grandfather is reported to have died intestate in the year 1955, hence it is evident that he died before the succession under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 opened even before the act was enacted. Therefore the trial court was right in dismissing the suit filed under the provisions of section 8 of HSA, 1956.
As per law if the father died before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughters generally did not have a right to inherit his property unless there were no male heirs. In such cases, succession was governed by the pre-1956 Mitakshara Law, which gave preference to male heirs. The property would go to the son or other male heirs, and a daughter could only inherit in the absence of any male children.
The Bombay High Court ruled daughters have no inheritance rights to their father's property if he died before the 1956 Hindu Succession Act.
The Act was not applied retroactively to deaths that occurred before its enactment, so the old laws continued to apply in these situations.
Since the matter is pending disposal in RFA before high court, you may wait for its disposal
As the property is the self acquired property of your grandfather and your mother is the class-1 heirs and she is entitled for her share in the property.
A daughter married before 1956 is not entitled to inherit her father’s self-acquired property if he died intestate before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as the old law (Mitakshara or customary law) applied, which generally excluded married daughters from inheritance, with only sons and unmarried daughters having rights. Since your mother was married in 1951 and her father died in 1955, succession was governed by pre-1956 Hindu law, so she would not have a legal claim to her father’s property. Major Supreme Court rulings, such as Gurbans Singh v. Ram Singh and others, affirm this position that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not apply retrospectively, hence your mother could not claim a share under this Act .
Dear Client,
Yes, your mother has a right to inherit from her father's self-acquired property even though she was married in 1951, and her father died in 1955. Since he died prior to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, old Hindu laws would apply to the distribution, but because the property was self-acquired it devolved according to the new succession principles recognised by the courts under Section 8 of the HSA. After the HSA daughters come in Class-I heirs and inherit an equal share with the son and mother regardless of marriage. A 1995 partition deed by the son without the signatures of all daughters will not bind the other legal heirs. Therefore, your mother would rightly receive 1/8 of the property (father's widow, son, 6 daughters) equals 8 legal heirs and the mother's 1/8 shares now devolves to you and your siblings. Rulings by the Supreme Court including but not limited to Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai, etc. state that the self-acquired property must devolve equally to all Class-I heirs, and rights by daughters cannot be defeated by a unilateral partition.
I hope this leads to a satisfactory answer. If you have further queries, please don’t hesitate to get back to us.
In this case, since the property in question was self-acquired by your mother’s father, the rules of succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would apply. Let’s go step by step.
Your mother’s father died in 1955, that is, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force (it came into effect on 17 June 1956). Therefore, the succession to his self-acquired property would not be governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, but rather by the old Hindu law (Mitakshara law) that was applicable before 1956.
Under the old Hindu law (before 1956), when a Hindu male died intestate (without a will), the property devolved upon his sons, and the daughters had no right to inherit, unless there was a specific regional or customary law providing otherwise. Therefore, if your mother’s father died in 1955, the property would have devolved only upon his son (your mother’s brother), and not upon the daughters, because the law giving equal rights to daughters did not exist then.
So, the civil court was right in holding that Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is inapplicable, because the succession opened before the Act came into force. The Act does not have retrospective effect.
If, however, there was clear evidence that the property was not divided and that your mother’s father’s estate remained joint and unpartitioned till after 1956, then one could argue that the succession opened later — but from the facts you shared, that does not appear to be the case.
Therefore, your mother would not be entitled to a share in her father’s self-acquired property since her father died in 1955, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The right to claim a share under Section 8 would have applied only if her father had died on or after 17 June 1956.
In short, under the law prevailing in 1955, only the son inherited, and the daughters were excluded from succession.
- As per Supreme Court , daughters have an equal share in ancestral property by birth, a right that is not affected by whether their father was alive or dead when the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was passed. The court has also clarified that this right applies even if the daughter pre-deceased her father, in which case her children can claim her share.
- Further, after the demise of her father intestate , she has also right over the self acquired property as well
- Hence, you mother was having her right over the self acquired property of her father after his demise.
- Further, after the death of mother , you being the legal heirs of mother having right over the share of your deceased mother.
Dear Sir,
If there is proof that the son treated the property as ancestral/joint family (e.g., entries showing “HUF” ownership or inclusion of daughters’ names in mutation/RTC), then one could argue:
“Even if the father’s death was before 1956, the property retained the character of joint family estate, and the daughters are coparceners post-2005 amendment.”
This is a narrow exception, but only if there’s strong documentary proof.
No, your mother is not entitled to a share. Since her father died in 1955 before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 succession was governed by old Mitakshara law, under which married daughters had no inheritance rights in their father’s self-acquired property. The Act cannot be applied retrospectively.
