Daughters’ Right in Ancestral Property Cannot Be Defeated by Sale Deeds Executed Solely by Sons — Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Registered Sale Deeds Without Participation of Daughters Cannot Extinguish Their Coparcenary Rights — Daughters Are Coparceners by Birth, Not by Consent; No Registered Partition, No Valid Alienation”….Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the rights of daughters in joint family property and dismissed the appeal filed by third-party purchasers who had acquired the land through sale deeds executed solely by male coparceners. The Court, presided over by Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao, emphatically held that “sale deeds executed by brothers without the participation of daughters—who are Class-I legal heirs—do not bind the daughters to the extent of their shares.”

The Court observed that since no partition had occurred—either oral or registered—the property remained joint family property, and the daughters were fully entitled to enforce partition without being obligated to seek cancellation of the sale deeds.

Court Begins by Affirming a Foundational Principle: “Coparcenary Right Flows from Birth, Not From Male Discretion”

The case revolved around the property of Samayamanthula Sarvayya, who had acquired agricultural land in 1957 and died intestate in 1982. His children from two marriages included both daughters (plaintiffs) and sons (defendants 1 to 3). In 2004, the sons sold the property to defendants 4 and 5 without involving the daughters. These sales were challenged in a suit for partition filed in 2006.

The plaintiffs argued that they were never parties to the sale deeds and had not relinquished their rights. The purchasers, on the other hand, claimed to be bona fide buyers and cited consent letters and revenue entries to validate their title. Both the trial court and the first appellate court held in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to the present second appeal.

Rejecting the contention that a suit for partition must necessarily include a prayer for cancellation of sale deeds, the High Court stated:
“Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act uses the term ‘may sue’, not ‘shall sue’. Plaintiffs, who are not parties to the impugned sale deeds, are not bound to seek cancellation to claim their own shares.”

“When the Law Grants Equal Rights, Omission from Sale Is Not Just a Technicality—It’s a Breach of Legal Entitlement”

The Court referred to Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [AIR 2020 SC 3717], noting:
“A daughter, whether born before or after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, is entitled to equal coparcenary rights. There is no requirement that the father be alive as on 9.9.2005. The right flows by birth.”

In that light, the Court emphasized that “there was no registered partition, no court decree, and no valid oral partition proved. Therefore, the entire property must be treated as undivided joint family property, in which the daughters have an enforceable right.”

The High Court firmly dismissed the argument that entries in revenue records or consent letters constituted relinquishment of rights. It ruled:
“Consent letters are not registered instruments and cannot divest legal heirs of their interest. Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, relinquishment of rights must be executed through a registered document.”

 “Third-Party Purchasers Cannot Claim Bona Fide Protection When They Ignore Known Legal Heirs”

Addressing the claim of the appellants that they were bona fide purchasers, the Court made a significant legal declaration:

“The sale deeds (Exs.B-3 and B-4) themselves recite that the properties were joint family properties. When such a recital exists, purchasers are on clear notice that others may have rights. By excluding the daughters, they accepted the risk. The sale deeds, therefore, bind only the share of the vendors and not that of the plaintiffs.”

The Court also found that defendants 4 and 5 had failed to exercise reasonable due diligence. Despite visible litigation history and the plaintiffs having recovered possession from trespassers in earlier suits, the purchasers did not insist on the plaintiffs being joined in the sale deeds.

“They [defendants 4 and 5] acted with knowledge of the title history but chose not to verify the full line of succession. They cannot now claim innocence or good faith.”

“No Registered Relinquishment, No Waiver of Right” — Revenue Records Don’t Extinguish Title

The Court rejected the defence based on mutation entries and pattadar passbooks, stating:
“Mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title. It merely enables the State to collect revenue. Title must be tested on substantive legal grounds.”

In reaffirming this, the Court cited Sawarni v. Inder Kaur [(1996) 6 SCC 223], where the Supreme Court held that mutation entries have no presumptive value regarding ownership and cannot override lawful title.

 “Concurrent Findings Stand; No Substantial Question of Law Arises”

Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao concluded that the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts were based on a correct appreciation of facts and law. No error had been shown that would justify interference under Section 100 CPC.

“This Court is satisfied that this second appeal did not involve any substantial question of law for determination,” the judge wrote, dismissing the appeal and reaffirming the plaintiffs’ right to partition.

 “In Law, Daughters Stand Equal at the Family Table—Not Behind the Curtain of Patriarchy”

This judgment reiterates that alienations in joint family property without participation of all Class-I heirs—especially daughters—are not legally sustainable. A purchaser who fails to ensure the consent and participation of all rightful heirs does so at his own peril.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2025