Introduction

Globally, women have long stood at the margins of property ownership. The legal doctrine of coverture, as stated by Blackstone in English law, held that a woman’s legal identity was absorbed into her husband's upon marriage. She couldn’t own property, enter contracts, or even keep her earnings. She was, in the law’s eyes, “civilly dead.”¹ This ideology found echoes in Nepal’s own legal and social traditions.

One of the strongest reflections of gender justice in legal terms is the right to ancestral property, which has historically been denied to women in patriarchal societies like Nepal. For decades, daughters were seen as temporary members of their birth families, expected to marry and leave behind both their homes and their claims. 

Historical Context of Nepal

In Nepal, the Laws of Manu (Manusmriti), explicitly limited women’s rights over property. While it suggested brothers give a portion of their share to unmarried sisters, it also stated that wives and slaves could own no property at all.² But the concept of Stridhana (the private property of the women) was prevalent. The ornaments, jewellery, apparel etc. were regarded as the women’s private property. The gifts given by the father, mother, brother, husband and other persons at the time of marriage could be regarded as the women's individual property. ³

The Muluki Ain of 1910, Nepal’s legal code at the time, reflected these traditions. According to clause 15 on the Partition Chapter, only an unmarried daughter over 35 who lived with her parents could claim property equal to her brothers. But even then, if she eloped, or married young, she lost all claim. In this system, a daughter was only temporarily part of her birth family, her legal identity shaped by whom she married, not where she came from.⁴

It wasn’t until 1975, following the UN's International Women’s Year, that Nepal even began to formally discuss women's inheritance rights.⁵ The sixth amendment of the Civil Code in 1977 gave unmarried daughters above 35 a narrow right to property, but with a condition that if they got married, they had to return it after deducting their wedding expenses.

The real momentum began in 1990, when Nepal adopted a new constitution that forbade discrimination based on sex. In 1991, Nepal ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The foundation was laid, and the women’s movement in Nepal began demanding concrete legal change, particularly in property laws.

In 1993, lawyer and activist Meera Dhungana filed a landmark case demanding that women be given equal inheritance rights. The Supreme Court, while not declaring the existing law unconstitutional, issued a directive order urging the government to reform it.⁶ This led to the drafting of the Women's Property Rights Bill, which was eventually passed as the 11th Amendment of the Country Code in 2002 (2059 B.S.). The amendment was a historic breakthrough which gave unmarried daughters the right to ancestral property by birth. However, the law still carried a regressive shadow that if a daughter was to be married, she had to return the remaining property, treating her as a temporary stakeholder in her own family.

Legal reforms made thereafter

The legal journey didn’t end there. Nepal has continued to make important legislative reforms. Under the 11th amendment, along with daughters being accepted as heirs, provisions regarding full rights to widow in inheritance cases, right of wife in husband’s property and property right to divorced women were mentioned.

The Gender Equality Act of 2063 B.S. (An Act to amend Some Nepal Acts for Maintaining Gender Equality, 2063) removed the condition that women had to remain unmarried or wait till 35 to inherit property.⁷ The 2072 Amendment further repealed discriminatory clauses like No. 1(a) and No. 16 of the Partition Chapter, which had previously demanded daughters return property after marriage.

Muluki Civil Code

At present, The legal provisions outlined in Muluki Civil Code of 2074 mark a progressive shift and reinforce gender equality in property rights. 

Section 205 clearly declares that a daughter is a coparcener by law.⁸ Section 206 and 239 further mention that all coparceners, male or female, have equal rights in joint property and that daughters are legal successors, whether they live with the family or separately.⁹

Section 215 ensures that both sons and daughters have equal entitlement to ancestral property, with no discrimination based on marital status, which is a significant departure from previous laws that revoked a daughter’s claim after marriage. ¹⁰

Section 217 strengthens this equality by granting daughters the legal right to demand partition of parental property, either during the parents' lifetime or after their death, putting them on par with sons in terms of claiming inheritance.¹¹

Importantly, Section 218 introduces a sense of balance by stipulating that daughters who inherit property also bear responsibilities such as caring for their parents, upholding family duties, and managing ancestral obligations, emphasizing that inheritance is not merely a right but also a duty.¹²

Section 239 further upholds gender neutrality by ensuring that daughters receive an equal share when property is divided among children, without excluding married daughters from the distribution.¹³

Finally, Section 241 extends these rights to adopted daughters, confirming that they, too, enjoy the same property and inheritance rights as biological daughters. 
Collectively, these provisions promote fairness, equity, and accountability within the framework of family and property law.¹⁴

These provisions are backed by the Constitution of Nepal, 2072, which enshrines equal rights to parental property for all children, regardless of gender and equal lineage rights for women under article 18(5) and 38. Further, Articles 25, 42, and 43 deal with protection of property rights, social justice, and social security. ¹⁵


Judicial cases 

In addition to Meera Dhungana’s case, other landmark judicial decisions helped push for equality:

Prakash Mani Sharma v. Council of Ministers (2062): Challenged laws that forced daughters to return inherited property after marriage. The court took a pragmatic approach and issued a directive order to the government to make necessary arrangements. Later, An Act to amend some Nepal Acts for Maintaining Gender Equality 2063 BS came into existence which repealed the said provision. ¹⁶

Dr.Chandra Bajracharya v. Secretariat of Parliament (2053): Writ was contested to change the legal provision of number 12 of partition and a directive order was issued for the same. As a result, in the 11th amendment of Muluki Ain, widow women were provided the right to live separately with partition. ¹⁷

Lili Thapa v. PM Office: Section No. 2 of the Chapter of the Country Code 2020 B.S. on ‘Women’s Share and Property’ legalized a woman’s right to dispose of a half portion of immovable property and a full portion of movable property to an unmarried woman, a woman having a husband or a widow who are separate from a joint family. A man, however, has the authority to dispose of the whole share of ancestral property. This discriminatory restriction imposed upon women was challenged as being against gender equality. After holding a hearing on the issue, the apex court found that gender inequality existed and the provision was contrary to Article 11 of the Constitution of 2047, thus the Supreme Court declared No. 2 of Chapter on ‘Women’s Share and Property’ of Country Code to be ultra-vires. ¹⁸

Rabindra Kami v. Tilattama Kami(2062): Reaffirmed that a wife managing the household had the right to sell her share of property without her son’s consent under Partition Clause No. 19(1). ¹⁹

These decisions, taken together, show how litigation and activism have reshaped inheritance laws in Nepal to align with the spirit of gender equality.

Feminist perspective

The right to property isn’t just about land, but about freedom, safety, and status. Feminist legal theory highlights this in three ways:

1. Liberal feminism argues for equal legal treatment under which sons and daughters are legally equal heirs. 

2. Radical feminism challenges the deep-rooted belief that men alone carry the family legacy. Recognizing daughters as heirs dismantles this idea.

3. Socialist feminism links ownership to economic independence. Land ownership gives women bargaining power, helping them escape cycles of dependency or abuse.

Research supports this. According to economists like Agarwal and Kabeer, property ownership can reduce gender-based violence, increase women’s decision-making power, and improve the well-being of the next generation. ²⁰

The Gap Between Law and Reality

Despite legal reforms, the lived experience remains unequal. Only 19.7% ²¹ of Nepali women own land, and just 11% actually control it.²²  In many rural areas, customs and patriarchal traditions still trump the law. 

Mohna Ansari, an attorney and former commissioner of the National Women Commission, said that although the law is in favor, there are places, especially the rural ones, where women are still not given the fair share of their property.²³

According to research done by the International Organization of Migration, inheritance is highly influenced by patriarchy, with the ancestral property passing down the male line.²⁴  As a result, there is still a significant gap between what the law provides for and what is actually practiced. 

Conclusion: Her Share is Justice
Nepal's legal reforms have made daughters' ancestral property rights a birthright, a major stride towards gender equality. This progress, born from years of activism, means more than just property for women; it signifies recognition, power, and justice. The ongoing challenge is ensuring every Nepali woman can claim these rights freely and safely.