Daughters inherit father's separate property upon widow's remarriage in preference to agnates under Mitakshara Law.

The plaintiffs (appellants) sought a partition of properties and the cancellation of a 1970 sale deed executed by Bauni Devi and Bilasho Devi (daughters of Radha Mahto) in favor of Defendant No. 1

Radha Mahto (son of Dukhi) died intestate prior to 1956 (either 1936 or 1945), leaving behind a widow, Sohagi Devi, and two daughters

Following Radha’s death, Sohagi Devi remarried Kashi Mahto (Radha’s cousin).

The plaintiffs argued that upon Sohagi’s remarriage, the property of Radha Mahto (Khata No. 57 and half of 56) should have devolved upon the agnates (Kashi Mahto’s line) because, under Shastric law prior to 1956, daughters were allegedly excluded from inheritance

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found that a partition had occurred between Radha and Kailu during their lifetimes, making Radha's holdings his separate property

Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, which stipulates that a widow’s right in her deceased husband’s property ceases upon remarriage as if she had then died, with the next heirs of the husband succeeding to the estate

Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, which recognized daughters as heirs to separate property

Arunachala Gounder (Dead) v. Ponnusamy, (2022) 11 SCC 520, which established that under Mitakshara law, the self-acquired or separate property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves by inheritance (not survivorship), and a daughter is entitled to inherit in preference to collaterals even prior to 1956

The court reasoned that since Radha Mahto and Kailu Mahto had partitioned their ancestral holdings, the lands in Khata No. 57 and half of 56 were Radha’s separate property

Upon Radha's death (intestate and without a son), his widow Sohagi Devi initially inherited a limited estate. However, under Section 2 of the 1856 Act, her remarriage to Kashi Mahto operated as her "civil death" regarding Radha's estate

Consequently, the succession "re-opened" for the next heirs. Applying the 1929 Act and the precedent in Arunachala Gounder, the court determined that the daughters (Bauni and Bilasho) were the immediate next heirs in the line of succession for separate property, surpassing agnates like Kashi Mahto

The court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the property reverted to the male agnates (survivorship), noting that survivorship only applies to joint coparcenary property, not property held separately following a partition

The court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the 1970 sale deed executed by the daughters was valid and that the plaintiffs had no claim to Radha’s separate estate. The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the partial partition decree limited to Kashi Mahto's own properties