News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 76 | 2026:CGHC:5150

Bilaspur, January 30, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that daughters have equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property, setting aside earlier court rulings that denied a woman her lawful share based on an alleged oral partition. The Court held that such informal arrangements have no legal validity under the Hindu Succession Act unless supported by a registered deed or a court decree.

The ruling came in a second appeal filed by Amrika Bai, who challenged the dismissal of her suit for partition of ancestral agricultural land in Rajnandgaon district. The dispute arose after her father, Dhanuk Lodhi, allegedly transferred large portions of family land to his sons from a second marriage while limiting the share given to his daughters.

Amrika Bai contended that the land in question was ancestral property and that, as a daughter, she was entitled to an equal share under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. She argued 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 dismissed her claim, holding that the earlier arrangement was protected by the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. They accepted the defence argument that Amrika Bai had already been allotted land and a portion of a house during her father’s lifetime.

However, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru disagreed, observing that the law clearly limits the protection under the proviso to partitions effected through a registered instrument or a decree of a competent court. Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the High Court held that a plea of oral partition, unsupported by public documents or legal formalities, cannot defeat a daughter’s statutory rights.

The Court noted that even if land had been given to Amrika Bai for residence or maintenance, such an arrangement could not be treated as a final or lawful partition of coparcenary property. In the absence of a legally recognised partition before the cut-off date, the daughter continued to be a coparcener by birth with the same rights as a son.

The High Court also rejected the defendants’ claim that the marriage between Amrika Bai’s parents had been dissolved by customary divorce, holding that no evidence had been produced to establish the existence or validity of such a custom.

Answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant, the Court set aside both the earlier judgments and allowed the second appeal. 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 judgment reinforces the principle that gender equality in inheritance is not merely symbolic but enforceable, and that informal family arrangements cannot override statutory rights granted to daughters under the amended succession law.

Case Reference : SA No. 26 of 2012, Amrika Bai v. Bhagwati Bai and Others; for the appellant: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate; for respondents Nos. 1 to 5: Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate; for the State: Mr. Lekhram Dhruv, Advocate; for respondents Nos. 7 to 13: none appeared despite service of notice.