In a partition appeal, Madras High Court ruled that a daughter is entitled to ½ share in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court held that the 2012 sale deed is not binding.
In an appeal concerning the partition of ancestral properties, a Single Judge Bench led by R. Sakthivel, J., ruled that a daughter is entitled to a ½ share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The Court clarified that the father’s presence on September 9, 2005, is not a requirement for enforcing co-parcenery rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Rejecting the defendants’ claims of ouster and adverse possession, the Court noted that simply mutating records or creating mortgages does not negate the presumption of joint possession among co-owners.
As a result, the Trial Court’s dismissal was set-aside, allowing the appeal and issuing a preliminary decree that recognized the plaintiff’s ½ share in the suit properties.
Also Read: Are Daughters Equal Heirs? | Property Rights of Women in India Explained
The dispute originated from properties bought in 1940 by the father, who died intestate in 1968, leaving behind his wife, son, and daughter. The mother also passed away intestate in 2012. The plaintiff claimed co-heirship and a right to ½ share in the suit properties, arguing that a sale deed executed in 2012 by Defendant 1 in favor of Defendant 2 was fraudulent and void.
The defendants contended that the properties were ancestral, acquired from joint family income, and stated that the plaintiff had been ousted since her marriage in 1962.
They claimed that revenue records, patta, kist receipts, and mortgage deeds evidenced exclusive possession by Defendant 1, thus allegedly perfecting title through ouster and adverse possession.
The second defendant further asserted that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. In contrast, the plaintiff argued based on the 1940 sale deed that the properties were self-acquired and that succession under the Hindu Succession Act entitled her to a share.
However, the defendants relied on documentation of record mutations, mortgages, and loans to support their claims of ouster and adverse possession. In its analysis, the Court emphasized that prior to the 1940 purchase, the father owned ancestral properties.
In the absence of other income sources, the suit properties must be classified as ancestral. It noted that establishing ouster requires exclusive, long-lasting, open, and uninterrupted possession, alongside hostile intent to the co-owners’ knowledge.
The Court reiterated that mere records, tax payments, or mortgages are insufficient to substantiate claims of ouster. It highlighted that the evidence required for ouster can’t follow a fixed formula but must consider the unique circumstances of each case.
Essential elements needed to prove ouster include
- (i) exclusive, long, open, and uninterrupted possession,
- (ii) possession that is hostile to the claimed rights of the co-owner,
- (iii) that such possession and hostility are known to the co-owner.
The Court also pointed out that the mere presence of patta and kist receipts in the name of Defendant 1, along with the plaintiff’s lack of objection, does not displace the assumption of joint possession as a co-owner.
Additionally, if there had indeed been an intent to exclude the plaintiff from the joint family and its properties due to her marriage, the father or mother could have straightforwardly executed a will favoring Defendant 1 alone regarding their shares in the suit properties.
Regarding limitation, the Court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) , which clarified that the father need not be alive as of September 9, 2005, for the daughter’s co-parcenery rights to be enforceable.
Also Read: Do Daughters Have Equal Property Right? : Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Consequently, the first defendant could not invoke the limitation plea under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court determined that since this suit revolved around partitioning properties, the claim of bona fide purchaser was inapplicable to the second defendant.
As a result, the sale deed dated October 15, 2012, would not bind the plaintiff or undermine her half share in the suit properties.
The Court thus allowed the appeal, set aside the Trial Court’s decree, and granted a preliminary decree recognizing the plaintiff’s ½ share. It further clarified that the 2012 sale deed would not affect the plaintiff’s rights and ordered no costs associated with this case.
Case Title: Sellammal v. Palanisamy
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
