Once a Partition is Acted Upon, It Cannot Be Reopened Merely Because It Was Unequal: Bombay High Court

Mutation Entries, Sale Transactions, and Possession Over Decades Establish Prior Partition - In a significant ruling Bombay High Court dismissed a Second Appeal challenging the denial of partition in an ancestral property dispute, holding that once a partition has been acted upon and accepted by the parties, it cannot be reopened merely on claims of inequality. Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s judgment granting partition and separate possession but modified the decree regarding a portion of land that had been excluded from partition.

The Court ruled that mutation entries, sale transactions, and long-standing possession provided sufficient proof of an earlier partition, and the plaintiffs' attempt to disregard it was legally untenable.

Partition of Ancestral Land and the Legal Battle That Followed
The dispute revolved around Gat No. 46 and Gat No. 70A, agricultural lands in Pune district, originally owned by Waman, the common ancestor of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Waman had two wives, and from these marriages, he had three sons—Anna (Defendant No.1), Nana, and Balu (Plaintiff No.1). The plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of Nana and Balu, filed a suit for partition and separate possession, contending that the properties remained joint family assets and that no formal division had taken place.

The trial court dismissed the suit, accepting Defendant No.1’s claim that a partition had already occurred in 1974 and that the plaintiffs had received and sold portions of their shares. The First Appellate Court overturned this decision, ruling that the partition was not legally established and that the properties remained joint family assets. The appellate court granted partition but excluded a portion of Gat No. 70A, holding that it was given to Defendant No.2 in exchange for her financial contribution towards its purchase.

The defendants filed a Second Appeal before the Bombay High Court, while the plaintiffs challenged the exclusion of Gat No. 70A in a cross-objection.

"Partition Once Effected and Acted Upon Cannot Be Reopened for Mere Convenience" – High Court Rejects the Plaintiffs' Claims
The High Court ruled that the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the existence of a prior partition, and reopening it merely because one party found it unequal was legally impermissible.

"Once a partition has been acted upon for decades, with co-sharers selling their portions and mutation entries reflecting separate ownership, the claim that no partition occurred is not tenable," the Court observed.

Referring to Mutation Entry No. 112, the Court noted that the plaintiffs’ predecessors had sold portions of the land, which could not have been possible if the properties remained undivided. It held that conduct and possession over time matter more than the mere absence of a registered partition deed.

"A registered partition deed is not the only means of proving severance. When parties start treating their respective portions as their own—selling, mortgaging, or cultivating them separately—it is proof of partition, even in the absence of a formal document," the Court ruled.

"Sale of Ancestral Property by Heirs is Clear Evidence of Severance of Joint Status" – High Court Dismisses the Joint Family Property Claim
The plaintiffs argued that since no registered partition deed was produced, the properties remained joint family assets. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that an oral partition followed by independent possession and sale transactions was sufficient proof of division.

"If co-sharers deal with their respective shares separately, it conclusively establishes that the joint family status has been severed. The law does not require a formal document to recognize this reality," the Court stated.

The Court relied on legal precedents, reiterating that when parties treat property as divided for decades, they cannot later claim it remains joint merely for convenience.

"Financial Contribution Alone Does Not Confer Ownership Rights" – High Court Overturns Exclusion of Land from Partition
The First Appellate Court had excluded a portion of Gat No. 70A from the partition, ruling that Defendant No.2 had contributed financially towards its purchase and was therefore entitled to retain possession. The plaintiffs challenged this exclusion, arguing that monetary contribution does not create property rights in ancestral land.

The High Court set aside the exclusion, ruling that Defendant No.2, being a maternal relative, had no legal right over the property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

"A financial contribution does not translate into ownership unless backed by a legally valid transfer. Defendant No.2’s contribution towards the purchase of land does not entitle her to ownership in the absence of a registered transfer document," the Court ruled.

Holding that Defendant No.2 had no legal claim over the ancestral property, the Court ordered that the excluded portion of Gat No. 70A be included in the partition.

Partition Upheld, but Defendant No.2's Exclusion Overturned
The High Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s ruling granting partition and separate possession but removed the exclusion of land given to Defendant No.2. The plaintiffs were declared entitled to partition, including the portion of Gat No. 70A that had earlier been excluded.

"Partition has been established beyond doubt, and the plaintiffs are entitled to their rightful shares, including the portion that was wrongly excluded. Defendant No.2, having no legal claim, cannot retain possession," the Court concluded.

The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed the principles governing partition disputes and ancestral property rights, ensuring that:

•    Once a partition is acted upon, it cannot be reopened merely on claims of inequality.
•    Mutation entries, sale transactions, and independent possession over decades establish partition, even without a registered deed.
•    Monetary contribution towards a property purchase does not create ownership rights unless supported by a legal transfer.
•    Ancestral property claims must align with the legal framework of inheritance—maternal relatives cannot claim shares unless explicitly transferred to them.
With this judgment, the High Court has protected property rights from unwarranted litigation, ensuring that prior partitions remain binding and that rightful heirs receive their due shares.

Date of Decision: March 3, 2025