Inheritance Isn’t Lost in Whispered Settlements: Kerala High Court Says Oral Family Claims Can’t Defeat Sisters’ Equal Share

“Mere Possession Is Not Ouster, and Bare Assertion Is Not Proof”, Kerala High Court, in a reportable judgment delivered by Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, dismissed Regular First Appeal, reiterating that statutory succession under the Indian Succession Act cannot be displaced by unproven oral family arrangements or vague pleas of adverse possession.

The Court upheld the preliminary decree for partition passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam, holding that each of the three siblings is entitled to an equal one-third share in the property left behind by their mother, including the commercial building known as “MGM Lodge.”

The litigation arose from a partition suit filed by two sisters against their brother. The parties are the children of late K.M. Marykutty, a Christian woman who died intestate on 01 August 2001. At the time of her death, her husband Korah V. Mathew was alive; he later died on 27 April 2011.

The sisters asserted that upon their mother’s intestate death, the plaint schedule property, including MGM Lodge, devolved equally upon all three children under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Alleging refusal by their brother to effect partition, they sought declaration of their lawful shares.

The brother resisted the suit claiming that on the 40th day after their mother’s death, an oral family settlement took place in the presence of relatives, whereby the entire property was allotted to him on the ground that the sisters had already received money and assets at the time of their marriage. In the alternative, he pleaded that he had perfected title by adverse possession.

“An Oral Family Settlement Must Be Proved, Not Merely Alleged”

While examining the plea of an oral family arrangement, the High Court found that the appellant’s case rested entirely on self-serving assertions. The Bench noted that although the appellant claimed that relatives mediated a settlement and that the sisters relinquished their rights, not a single independent witness was examined to support this version.

The Court recorded that no documentary evidence was produced to show payment of money, transfer of property, or allotment of residential buildings or vehicles to the sisters. Significantly, there was no mutation of revenue records or change in title documents reflecting exclusive ownership in favour of the appellant.

The Court held that “oral family arrangements which alter statutory succession require strict proof,” and observed that in the present case “the evidence is wholly lacking.” It concluded that a mere claim of a settlement, without corroboration, cannot extinguish the lawful rights of co-heirs.

“Long Possession Alone Cannot Mature into Ownership Among Co-Owners”

Turning to the plea of adverse possession, the High Court reiterated the settled principle that possession by one co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of all, unless ouster is clearly proved.

The Court observed that the appellant’s own case of a family settlement contradicted the hostile animus necessary to establish adverse possession. Even otherwise, the appellant failed to show any act of exclusion or denial of the sisters’ rights.

The Bench made it clear that “mere long and continuous possession, without proof of ouster, is wholly insufficient to sustain a plea of adverse possession against co-owners.”

“Christian Intestate Succession Mandates Equality”

Affirming the statutory framework, the Court held that since the parties are Christians, succession is governed entirely by the Indian Succession Act, 1925. On the intestate death of their mother, all children inherit equally, unless there is a valid relinquishment or legally proved settlement.

The Court found no legal basis to deprive the sisters of their share and declared that each of the three siblings is entitled to an equal one-third share in the plaint schedule property.

The Kerala High Court’s ruling sends a clear message that inheritance rights cannot be defeated by informal narratives or unsubstantiated family claims. By rejecting both the plea of oral settlement and adverse possession, the Court reaffirmed that succession law values certainty, proof, and equality over convenience and assertion.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court upheld the principle that “statutory inheritance cannot be diluted by silence, possession, or alleged understandings unsupported by evidence.”

Date of Decision: 17 December 2025