Do married daughters get coparcenary rights under the Maharashtra 1994 Amendment?

Yes, if their father (a coparcener) was alive on or after June 22, 1994. Their marital status alone does not defeat the right if the condition is met.

What about the family dwelling house under old Section 23 HSA?

Before the 2005 repeal, Section 23 restricted daughters from seeking partition of a dwelling house until male heirs chose to divide. They had residence rights in limited situations.

What did the High Court decide in this case?

It recognized the daughters’ shares in ancestral properties due to the 1994 Amendment but denied separate partition of the dwelling house because of Section 23.

Does the Amendment apply retrospectively?

It is prospective. The key is whether the father was alive on June 22, 1994. If yes, daughters get coparcenary rights from that date.

What proof matters in partition suits like this?

Nature of property (ancestral vs self-acquired), the father’s status and date of death, and the applicable amendment date and Section 23 restrictions.

Champabai Dashrathsing Pardeshi v. Shamkuwarbai Gajrajsing Pardeshi

Quick Summary

This case explains how the Maharashtra Amendment, 1994 to the Hindu Succession Act works for married daughters. If the father (coparcener) was alive on or after 22 June 1994, daughters—though married earlier—get coparcenary rights in ancestral property. But under the then Section 23, they could not force partition of the dwelling house until male heirs chose to divide, though limited residence rights could exist.

```

Issues

Were the married daughters (plaintiffs) entitled to separate shares by partition despite their pre-1994 marriages?
How does Section 23 (dwelling house) affect their claim for separate possession?

Rules

Maharashtra Amendment, 1994: Daughters get equal coparcenary rights if their father (coparcener) was alive on/after 22-06-1994.
Prospective effect: The right is not retrospective; the alive-on-date condition is crucial.
Section 23 (pre-2005): Daughters could not demand partition of a dwelling house until male heirs opted to divide; they could claim residence in limited situations (e.g., estrangement).

Key test: Was the father alive on 22-06-1994? If yes, daughters’ coparcenary rights arise, subject to Section 23 limits on the dwelling house.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline of facts in Champabai Dashrathsing Pardeshi v. Shamkuwarbai

Family: Plaintiffs (Champabai & sister) are married daughters of Dashrath Singh from his first marriage (to Chandra Kaur).

Second marriage: After Chandra Kaur’s death, Dashrath married Defendant No.1; two sons (Def. 2 & 3) were born.

1994: Maharashtra Amendment gives daughters equal coparcenary rights if father alive on/after 22-06-1994.

1998: Dashrath Singh dies (he was alive on/after the amendment date).

Suit: Married daughters seek partition and damages. Trial court grants each 1/5th share.

Appeal: Defendants appeal to the High Court on daughters’ rights and nature of properties and house.

Arguments

Appellants (Defendants)

Daughters were married long before 1994 → no coparcenary rights.
Suit properties are self-acquired; no ancestral share to claim.
Section 23 bars partition of the dwelling house.

Respondents (Plaintiffs)

Father was alive after 22-06-1994 → rights flow under the 1994 Amendment.
Properties are ancestral/joint; partition and separate possession are due.
Residence/partition claims evaluated as per Section 23.

Judgment

The High Court recognized the daughters’ shares in the ancestral properties because the father was alive on/after 22-06-1994. However, regarding the dwelling house, it held that the decree granting separate shares was not proper under then Section 23. Married daughters could not force partition of the dwelling house (though residence rights could be considered if estranged).

Ratio Decidendi

Alive-on-date rule: Daughters’ coparcenary rights under the Maharashtra Amendment, 1994 arise only if the father (coparcener) was alive on/after 22-06-1994. Section 23 (pre-2005) restricts daughters from demanding partition of the dwelling house despite such rights; separate possession there cannot be granted contrary to the embargo.

Outcome: Shares recognized in ancestral property; no separate partition of dwelling house under Section 23.

Why It Matters

Clarifies when married daughters get coparcenary shares in Maharashtra.
Shows how Section 23 limited relief in dwelling house cases before 2005.
Guides trial courts on tailoring decrees: recognize shares, but respect dwelling house restrictions.

Key Takeaways

Father alive on/after 22-06-1994 → daughters get coparcenary rights (even if married earlier).
Prospective effect; not retrospective to fathers who died before that date.
Section 23 (then) barred forced partition of the dwelling house; separate shares there could not be carved out.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “ALIVE-94, DAUGHTER-SHARE.”

Alive in 1994? Father must be alive on/after 22-06-1994.
Share arises → coparcenary rights for daughters.
House hold → Section 23 limits partition of dwelling house.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can married daughters claim partitioned shares under the 1994 Amendment, and what about the dwelling house?

Rule

Alive-on-date condition (22-06-1994); Section 23 restricts partition of the dwelling house (pre-2005 regime).

Application

Father died in 1998 → condition met; shares recognized. But dwelling house partition barred by Section 23.

Conclusion

Daughters entitled to shares in ancestral property; no separate partition of the dwelling house under Section 23.

Glossary

Coparcenary: A narrow group within a Hindu joint family that acquires birth-based interest in ancestral property.
Dwelling house (Section 23): Family home; daughters (pre-2005) could not compel partition until male heirs chose to divide.
Prospective amendment: A change in law that operates from a specified date forward, not backward in time.

FAQs

No. If the father was alive on/after 22-06-1994, daughters get coparcenary rights despite earlier marriages.

Coparcenary rules apply to ancestral/joint property. Self-acquired assets follow succession/testamentary rules.

Under the pre-2005 Section 23, no. They could not compel partition of the dwelling house until male heirs opted to divide.

If a married daughter is estranged/abandoned, courts recognized residence rights, but Section 23 still restricted partition.

Quick Jump

Case Meta

CASE_TITLE: Champabai Dashrathsing Pardeshi v. Shamkuwarbai Gajrajsing Pardeshi
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Maharashtra Amendment 1994, coparcenary rights, married daughters
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Section 23 dwelling house, partition, ancestral property
PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Slug: champabai-dashrathsing-pardeshi-v-shamkuwarbai-gajrajsing-pardeshi

```

Useful Links

Contact