By Sujit Bhar
A recent legal dispute in Bengaluru has reignited debates around property, inheritance, adult consent, gender roles, and entrenched family values in Indian society. A 19-year-old woman, now in her late 30s, has legally challenged the sale of a parcel of property by her father nearly two decades ago—property which was reportedly sold to fund her own marriage. Her claim: the sale was carried out without her knowledge or consent, despite her being a legal adult at the time. She has demanded either compensation or restoration of the said property. She has moved against the buyer, not her father, as of now.
This move has triggered a polarised wave of reactions, particularly on social media, where the daughter is being vilified as “ungrateful” and with “anti-Indian values”. But beyond the moral posturing lies a critical legal and ethical question: Did she have a legitimate legal stake in the property? And more importantly, was her consent necessary for the sale to be valid?
To analyse this case, one must begin with a fundamental question: What was the nature of the property that was sold?
PROPERTY SELF-ACQUIRED BY THE FATHER
If the property in question was self-acquired by the father—that is, bought with his own income and not inherited—he was legally entitled to dispose of it as he pleased, even without informing or seeking consent from his children, regardless of their age.
Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a man is the absolute owner of his self-acquired property and is under no legal obligation to seek approval from his children, spouse, or any other family member while selling or gifting such property.
In such a scenario, the daughter’s case is likely to fail. Courts have consistently held that adult children do not have any inherent right to a parent’s self-acquired property during the parent’s lifetime.
Case reference: In the 2002 case Balbir Kaur & Ors vs Harinder Kaur & Ors, the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the issue of a widowed daughter-in-law’s right to maintenance and residence against her father-in-law’s self-acquired property, even after it was gifted to another individual. The Court ultimately dismissed the daughter-in-law’s claim, stating she had no right to reside in the self-acquired property of her father-in-law.
PROPERTY IS ANCESTRAL OR INHERITED BY THE FATHER
This is where the daughter’s case gains legal traction.
Ancestral property, under Hindu law, is that which passes undivided down four generations of male lineage. If the property sold was inherited by the father from his father (i.e., the daughter’s grandfather) and had not been partitioned, it qualifies as ancestral. In such cases, all coparceners (which now includes daughters after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act) acquire a right in the property by birth.
Since the daughter was 19 at the time of sale (i.e., a legal adult and, crucially, a coparcener after the 2005 amendment), her consent would have been required for a legal sale of the property. If this consent was not taken, the sale could be declared invalid.
Key precedent: Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma (2020)—The Supreme Court held that daughters have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties and these rights are by birth, not dependent on whether the father was alive in 2005 or not.
Therefore, if the property in question was ancestral or inherited and not partitioned, and the daughter was denied her rightful say, the sale could be contested—and possibly reversed.
PROPERTY FROM MOTHER’S SIDE OF FAMILY
Another dimension arises if the property was inherited by the father from his wife’s family—i.e., the daughter’s maternal side. This could have occurred in the form of a gift, inheritance, or dowry (although illegal) at the time of marriage.
- If the property was gifted specifically to the daughter’s mother, then it would legally belong to her. Upon her death, her children (including the daughter in question) would inherit the property as per Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act.
- If the property was gifted jointly to both husband and wife, or solely to the husband (the daughter’s father), the interpretation becomes more complex. It depends on the nature of the gift deed or will, if any. If there is ambiguity, courts may presume that property gifted during marriage for the couple’s benefit is held in joint ownership.
Relevant Case: Omprakash vs Radhacharan (2009)—The Supreme Court observed that in cases where property comes to a woman by way of inheritance, her heirs under Section 15 of the HSA (which includes sons and daughters) get equal rights.
Hence, if the property belonged to the wife or her family and was transferred to the father without a clear legal basis, the daughter’s claim gains strength, especially if the mother is deceased and there is no will.
SOCIAL NORMS VS LEGAL RIGHTS
In Indian society, the act of a father “sacrificing” land for a daughter’s marriage is often celebrated. The woman’s demand for her rightful share years later is viewed as betrayal—a break from the ideal of the “dutiful daughter”.
However, such sentiment, while culturally deep-seated, cannot override the law. Women, for centuries, have been deprived of property rights under the guise of preserving family honour, marriage customs, or patriarchal traditions. The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act was a landmark step in correcting this inequality.
The daughter’s claim in this case, while socially controversial, is not necessarily legally invalid. It marks a broader awakening of women asserting rights in spaces traditionally controlled by male elders.
DAUGHTER’S AGE DURING SALE
At 19, the daughter was legally an adult under Indian law. If the property was inherited or ancestral, she was a coparcener with a birthright interest.
The father’s decision to sell without her consent—particularly for a purpose that indirectly served her (i.e., marriage)—does not negate her right, unless she explicitly relinquished her claim through a registered release deed, partition deed, or settlement.
If no such waiver exists, her delayed litigation is still legally tenable, provided it falls within the limitation period. Courts often apply the doctrine of continuing cause in property disputes, especially if the aggrieved party was unaware of their rights due to family pressure or lack of legal knowledge.
LEGAL REMEDIES FOR THE BUYER
In her suit, the daughter has targeted the buyer, which introduces another element. If the buyer purchased the property in good faith, with a registered sale deed and consideration paid, and the title appeared clear, courts may protect the buyer under the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice.
However, if the buyer was aware of the daughter’s legal interest, or if the documents bore inconsistencies, the sale could be overturned or compensation awarded.
PREVENTING FUTURE CHAOS
Cases like this can be avoided through the following mechanisms:
Clarity in documentation: All transactions should include declarations of ownership (ancestral or self-acquired). Release deeds from all adult coparceners must be registered when selling ancestral property.
Awareness and legal literacy: Adult children, especially women, must be educated about their rights in property. Legal aid clinics should be accessible for women in semi-urban and rural areas.
Family settlements: A written and registered family settlement deed can prevent future conflicts. Partition of property should be done formally, not just orally or based on tradition.
Regulation by registrars: Sub-registrars should be legally required to inquire whether a property is ancestral during registration, and whether all stakeholders have signed.
The daughter’s decision to challenge her father’s actions decades later may be viewed as radical, even ungrateful, by many. But if the law grants her the right, then her fight is not against family—it is for fairness.
India is evolving, so must our understanding of inheritance, consent, and gendered rights. It is no longer enough to uphold family tradition; we must now uphold legal equity and constitutional morality. A father’s sacrifice for a daughter’s marriage may be noble, but not if it comes at the cost of her birthright—especially when she had no say in it.