Case Title
Bhimavarapu Subba Reddy & Another vs. B. Thirupathamma (Died) & Others
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati
Justice Venuthurmalli Gopala Krishna Rao
Case Number : A.S. No. 1082 of 2000
26 September 2025
Case Analysis
Bhimavarapu Subba Reddy and Bhimavarapu Ramakrishna Paramahamsa Reddy (Appellants) filed this appeal against a Civil Court judgment (O.S. No. 569/1987) from Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, which was decided on 13 September 2000.
The dispute is about ancestral property and the rights of daughters in that property.
Main Point – Daughters’ Right in Property
Earlier, before 2005, daughters didn’t have equal rights like sons in Hindu family property.
But after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, daughters became coparceners (equal heirs) by birth — meaning, they have equal share in ancestral property just like sons.
In this case, the daughter (B. Thirupathamma) claimed her right in the ancestral property of her father’s family.
However, her brothers (the appellants) denied her right, saying the partition already happened before 2005.
Trial Court Decision (Guntur Court)
The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur held that:
- The daughter is entitled to a share in the family property.
- The partition claimed by the brothers was not validly proved.
- Therefore, Thirupathamma gets her share legally.
The brothers were unhappy and filed an appeal in the High Court.
Arguments in Appeal (High Court)
Appellants (Brothers):
- Claimed that property partition took place long ago, before the 2005 amendment.
- Said daughter’s claim is not valid because she married long ago and didn’t claim earlier.
Respondents (Daughter’s Legal Heirs):
- Said no legal partition happened earlier.
- After the 2005 amendment, daughters became equal sharers, so they have every right to claim their share.
High Court’s Findings
The High Court carefully looked at:
- The date of the alleged partition (no concrete evidence found).
- The law after the 2005 amendment.
- The Supreme Court judgments like:
- Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020) – confirming equal rights to daughters by birth.
Hence, the Court ruled that:
“Once a woman is a daughter of a coparcener, she gets equal rights by birth, whether the father is alive or not on the date of 2005 amendment.”
Laws & Legal Provisions Applied
1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The main law governing inheritance of property among Hindus.
2. Section 6 – Coparcenary Rights (Before 2005)
Before 2005, only sons were coparceners. Daughters had no birthright in ancestral property.
3. Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
Gave equal coparcenary rights to daughters as sons.
“A daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son.”
4. Section 151, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908
Invoked for interim petitions (stay of execution, setting aside abatement, bringing legal heirs on record, etc.).
Important Supreme Court Judgments Referred
- Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) – Daughters have equal rights by birth, even if the father died before 2005.
- Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) – Married daughters also have equal right in ancestral property.
Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) – Earlier restrictive view, later overruled by Vineeta Sharma.
Final Judgment (Outcome)
1)The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the brothers.
2)Confirmed that the daughter (through her legal heirs) is entitled to an equal share in the family’s ancestral property.
3)Reaffirmed the principle under Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Judgment
“Daughters have equal rights in ancestral property just like sons — even if the partition happened long before 2005, unless it was legally proved.”
