Summary of this article
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has revived a three-decade-old inheritance dispute, ruling in favour of female heirs
The HC set aside a 1998 appellate judgment that had denied the daughters and grandson of the late Jaswant Singh their one-fifth share.
The order underscores that even before the 2005 amendment, the law never extinguished women’s ownership rights, it only delayed possession in certain cases.
A 30-year legal battle over an ancestral home in Haryana has finally ended, and in a way that strengthens women’s property rights under Hindu law.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent ruling, restored a trial court’s decree that had granted daughters and grandchildren of the late Jaswant Singh their rightful one-fifth share in a family property located in Chhachhrauli town of Yamunanagar, Haryana.
Justice Mandeep Pannu, setting aside a 1998 appellate court order, described the earlier judgment as “perverse” and “contrary to law,” holding that it had misapplied a now-repealed provision of the Hindu Succession Act to deny women their claim.
The case that dates back to the 90s
The dispute dates back to 1995, when Jaswant Singh’s daughters and grandson sought partition of a house left behind by Uttam Singh, who had died intestate in the 1980s. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his estate was to be divided equally among his three sons and two daughters.
In 1996, the civil court in Jagadhri ruled in favour of the daughters and grandson, confirming joint ownership and issuing a preliminary decree for partition. However, two years later, an appellate court overturned this decision, citing Section 23 of the Act, which at that time restricted female heirs from seeking partition of a dwelling house unless a male heir initiated it.
Justice Pannu clarified that even under the old law, Section 23 never took away a woman’s ownership right, it only postponed possession. She further observed that since Jaswant Singh’s grandson, a male heir, was a co-plaintiff in the case, the restriction did not apply.
“The embargo of Section 23 stood automatically lifted once a male heir sought partition,” the judgment stated, adding that “the female heirs’ proprietary rights could not be curtailed or whittled down.”
The judge also rejected the earlier finding that the suit filed on behalf of a minor was invalid, holding that a natural guardian can legally represent a minor’s proprietary interest.
The High Court, by restoring the 1996 decree, has reaffirmed the daughters’ legal entitlement of getting an equal share in the ancestral home.
This verdict also aligns with the 2025 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act which abolished gender based restrictions and formally recognised daughters as ‘coparceners’, thereby granting them equal rights and liabilities in ancestral property.
Before 2005, daughters were not treated as coparceners under the Mitakshara system of Hindu law. The amendment corrected this inequality, giving daughters an unobstructed heritage, a birthright equal to that of sons.
The subsequent Supreme Court judgments, such as the Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma (2020) case further reinforced that a daughter’s right to ancestral property does not depend on whether her father was alive at the time of the amendment.
The recent judgment in Singh’s case, one that took decades of legal reform to course-correct, highlights gender-based equality of property inheritance rights. For Jaswant Singh’s heirs, it brings long-delayed closure; for many others, it reinforces that the law now truly recognises daughters as equal stakeholders in the family home.
