Woman denied family property for marrying outside caste; HC rules daughter has same rights as sons
The decisions reinforce that caste or family disputes cannot override a daughter’s legal right to her father’s property. The courts made clear that these rights would remain intact unless the girl formally gave them up.
Patel woman wins appeal after being cut off from ancestral land
A Patel woman who married a man from the OBC community was not allowed to get a share of her ancestral property after her family cut ties with her. Following his father’s death in 1986, his seven siblings added their names to property records and kept him out.
He only discovered this in 2018 and filed a civil lawsuit in 2019 to get his 1/8 share. The civil court rejected his request, citing the 12-year statute of limitations. His brothers also argued in the high court that the case was rightfully rejected.
However, the Gujarat high court took a different view. It allowed the appeal and annulled the civil court’s decision. “In view of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, although the amendment was made in 2005, the right of the daughter to become a coparcenary spouse has been recognized from 1956 onwards and, therefore, even if the amendment was made in 2005, the right of the daughter over the father’s property does not cease until the daughter herself waives her right or such right is otherwise extinguished,” the court said.
The 2005 amendment made daughters co-partners from birth and gave them the same rights and responsibilities as sons on family property. The HC has now asked the civil court to re-examine the case and decide on partition and related issues.
Ahmedabad woman’s claim accepted despite her escape
In another case, an Ahmedabad woman who eloped and married a man from another caste fought for her share in the property her father had bought. She approached the court in 2013 to stop her mother and brother from selling their property in Ghatlodia. His family argued that he cut ties by running away and claimed that when he returned in 2008, he was given a flat to live in Vejalpur, which he allegedly usurped. An FIR was also filed. After the mother’s death, the brother filed a countersuit saying that he had bought the house from his mother in 2011 to take possession of the house in Vejalpur.
But in May 2022, the civil court said the properties remained undivided joint assets and prevented the brother from selling them. The court ruled that the woman had equal rights in these matters and rejected her claim that she had taken over the flat in Vejalpur.
His brother objected but failed again. The district court upheld the earlier decision and noted last week: “Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s decision was in any way erroneous, illegal, or contrary to principles of law.”
Message to families: Girls’ rights are not optional
Both cases highlight a clear legal situation; Family disputes, caste preferences or elopement cannot be used to erase a woman’s inheritance rights. Courts reminded families that daughters have equal standing with sons under Hindu inheritance law.
(Source: TOI)
