Daughter Wins Undivided One-Fourth Share In Four Agricultural Properties, While Brother Retains House Bought In His Name

The plaintiff, Rani, sought partition and separate possession of five properties, claiming a one-fourth share as the daughter of the family. Items 1–4 were agricultural lands; item 5 was a house purchased in the name of her brother, the first defendant.

The trial court dismissed the suit, reasoning that the plaintiff had not established that items 1–4 were acquired from joint-family funds. In appeal, Rani abandoned her claim to item 5 and maintained her claim to a one-fourth share in items 1–4. The first respondent had no objection to those lands being divided in accordance with law.

The parties did not dispute that their father had died in 1979.

The Court applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

It stated that the amendment recognises daughters’ rights in joint-family property, provided there has been no earlier testamentary disposition or written partition deed affecting the property.

The Court held that the trial court’s focus on the plaintiff’s failure to prove that the lands were purchased from a joint-family nucleus did not justify denying her a share under the amended Section 6.

Given the undisputed family relationship and the absence of an earlier testamentary disposition or written partition, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary decree for a one-fourth share in items 1–4. It also noted the first respondent’s lack of objection to partition of those lands.

Item 5 was treated separately because it had been purchased in the first respondent’s name, and the plaintiff had relinquished her claim to it.

A preliminary decree was granted for one-fourth shares in items 1–4 to the appellant, the second respondent, the first respondent, and the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent.

Item 5 was held to vest entirely in the first respondent.

The parties were directed to pursue final-decree proceedings, with the trial court asked to effect partition so agricultural activity could continue and the lands would not be unnecessarily fragmented. No costs were ordered.