The judgment, delivered on October 13, 2025, by Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, dismissed a second appeal filed by the legal heir of Smt. Ragmania, who had sought half the family land in Surguja district. The court upheld two lower court decisions from 2008 and 2014.

Family Dispute Over Village Land

The case began in 2005 when Ragmania filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge Class-II, Surguja (Civil Suit No. 181-A/2005). She claimed:

• Her grandfather Sudhin and his brother Budhau jointly held 6.85 acres (Khasra No. 13) in village Puhputra, Lakhanpur tehsil, after the merger of Surguja State.
• Sudhin had two children: Ragmania (daughter) and Baigadas (son).
• After Sudhin’s death, Baigadas took full control and later tried to mutate part of the land in his daughter Jagmet’s name in 2002–03.
• Ragmania objected before the Tahsildar (Revenue Case No. 13-A-27/2002-03), but her plea was rejected on August 23, 2003.

Ragmania argued she was entitled to half the land under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, which gives daughters equal coparcenary rights.

Key Evidence: Father Died in 1950–51

• PW-3 (Ramsundar), aged 70 in 2008, testified that Sudhin died 60 years ago — i.e., around 1948–49.
• Defendants stated in written submissions that Sudhin died in 1950–51 — a fact not challenged by the plaintiff.
• Revenue records showed the land passed solely to Baigadas after Sudhin’s death.
• Ragmania admitted her marriage was arranged by Baigadas after their father’s death.

Trial Court (2008) & First Appeal (2014): Suit Dismissed

The Civil Judge ruled:

• Sudhin died before 1956 → Hindu Succession Act does not apply.
• Under old Mitakshara law, a married daughter has no right if a son exists.
• Baigadas inherited the entire property as the sole male heir.

The 2nd Additional District Judge, Surguja, upheld this in Civil Appeal No. 15-A/2011 on January 23, 2014.

High Court: Three Questions of Law

The second appeal (SA No. 178 of 2014) was admitted on April 2, 2025, with these substantial questions:

1. Can the 2005 amendment give the daughter a share if the father died before 1956?
2. Are the parties governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?
3. (Added on July 15, 2025) Can the daughter inherit if partition happened before 1956?

Answer: No to all.

Why Old Law Applies: Legal Breakdown

• Succession opens on death: The law at the time of the owner’s death freezes the rights.
• Sudhin died in 1950–51 → Mitakshara law governs.
• Under Mitakshara: Sons get property by survivorship; daughters only inherit if no male issue.
• 1929 Amendment Act added some female heirs (e.g., sister, son’s daughter) but did not make daughters equal to sons.

Supreme Court Backing

The High Court relied on:

• Arshnoor Singh v. Harpal Kaur (2020): Pre-1956 death → Mitakshara applies.
• Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (2022): Daughter can inherit father’s separate property only if no son.

Final Outcome

• Appeal dismissed.
• No interference with mutation in favor of Jagmet and Budhiyaro.
• Plaintiff’s Will (2005) giving entire claim to Kariman Das declared invalid — she had no share to bequeath.
• No costs.

What This Means

• Thousands of old cases may be affected where fathers died before 1956.
• Daughters in such families cannot reopen partition using 2005 amendment.
• Documentation matters: Death certificates, revenue entries, and family settlements are crucial.

Also Read: Hearsay Can’t Make You Pakistani: Bombay HC Quashes Enemy Property Tag

The post Married Daughter Has No Right in Father’s Land: Chhattisgarh HC appeared first on Square Feat India.