Can a Father Give Ancestral Property Only to His Son? Andhra Pradesh High Court Clarifies Daughters’ Rights

8 July, 2026:  The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that daughters have an equal legal claim over ancestral property and that a father cannot take away their share by executing a relinquishment deed in favour of a son. The judgment reinforces the rights granted to daughters under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which made them equal coparceners in ancestral property.

The ruling comes as many families continue to face confusion over whether a father can transfer ancestral property solely to a son by excluding his daughters.

In its judgment, the High Court observed that every coparcener in an ancestral property, including sons and daughters, has an independent and vested legal right. Therefore, one co-owner cannot surrender or transfer the share that legally belongs to another co-owner.

The court clarified that if a father executes a relinquishment deed in favour of his son, the deed can apply only to the father’s own share or rights. It cannot extinguish or reduce the legal rights of daughters or any other coparceners in the ancestral property.

Background of the Case

The case arose after a father reportedly executed a relinquishment deed transferring ancestral property only to his son while excluding his daughters from his second marriage.

The daughters challenged the move before the court, arguing that they were entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property. After examining the matter, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the father could not legally deprive his daughters of their inheritance rights through such a document.

The court ruled that even if the relinquishment deed is otherwise valid, it cannot override the vested rights of other legal heirs who are coparceners in the ancestral property.

The court reiterated that following the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, daughters enjoy the same rights and liabilities as sons in ancestral property. Their rights arise by birth and cannot be taken away unilaterally by another family member.

It further stated that an individual can relinquish only the rights they personally possess and cannot waive or transfer the legal entitlement of another coparcener.

The High Court also distinguished ancestral property from self-acquired property.

In ancestral property, every coparcener, including daughters and sons, has a collective ownership interest until the property is partitioned. No single family member can claim exclusive ownership over the entire property or transfer another person’s share.

However, if the property is self-acquired and purchased entirely from a person’s own earnings, the owner has full discretion to transfer, gift or bequeath it according to their wishes. Children do not automatically acquire ownership rights over self-acquired property during the owner’s lifetime.

The judgment serves as a reminder that daughters are legally entitled to an equal share in ancestral property and that their rights cannot be defeated through unilateral property transfer documents executed by another family member.