-
by sayum
10 February 2026 8:56 AM
“Property Allotted To Father In Family Arrangement Loses Coparcenary Colour And Opens Under Section 8”, Madras High Court, in a reportable judgment delivered by Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice R. Sakthivel revisited the delicate intersection between oral family arrangements, coparcenary rights of daughters under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and succession under Section 8. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the wholesale dismissal of a partition suit by the Trial Court and held that while a pre-2005 oral family arrangement is binding on daughters, the share allotted to the father therein becomes his separate property, which must devolve upon all Class-I heirs, including daughters.
“Ex-B2 Is Not A Partition Deed, But A Memorandum Of A Past Oral Partition”
The dispute arose from a partition suit filed by two daughters seeking shares in two items of property. Suit Item No.1 was admitted ancestral property, whereas Suit Item No.2 was alleged to be ancestral but was disputed by the defendants.
The first defendant relied heavily on Ex-B2 (Partition Agreement dated 06.01.1982) to contend that the suit properties were already partitioned between the father and his two sons. Rejecting the Trial Court’s sweeping reliance on Ex-B2, the High Court clarified its legal nature, holding that:
“A close reading of Ex-B2 would show that its recitals are written in past tense… it records a past transaction and does not create any rights or interest in praesenti.”
The Court ruled that Ex-B2 was only a memorandum recording an earlier oral partition, and therefore did not require registration or stamp duty, making it admissible in evidence.
“Court Auction Sales Frustrated The Earlier Arrangement – Fresh Oral Family Arrangement Proved”
The Bench noted that a major portion of Suit Item No.2, allegedly allotted to the first defendant in the earlier oral partition, was lost through successive court auction sales arising out of maintenance and money decrees. This factual development, supported by execution proceedings and delivery petitions, made the earlier arrangement unworkable.
The Court accepted the defendants’ plea that a subsequent oral family arrangement was entered into, under which Suit Item No.1 alone was divided equally among the father and his two sons. The Bench observed:
“It is probable and natural that… the parties entered into a fresh oral family arrangement whereby the remaining property viz., Suit Item No.1 was split equally.”
This finding was further reinforced by subsequent sale agreement (1989) and sale deed (1990) executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant.
“Daughters Are Coparceners By Birth, But Saving Clause Still Applies”
On the question of daughters’ rights, the Court drew a clear doctrinal distinction. While the plaintiffs were admittedly married prior to 1989 and thus not entitled to benefits under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1990, the Bench unequivocally held that:
“Irrespective of the date of demise of father, daughters are coparceners by birth under amended Section 6.”
However, applying sub-section (5) of Section 6 and relying on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Court held that oral partitions or family arrangements prior to 20.12.2005 are saved, and therefore binding on daughters, even though they are coparceners under the amended law.
“Father’s Share Loses Coparcenary Character And Opens To Succession”
The most significant legal contribution of the judgment lies in its treatment of the father’s share under the oral family arrangement. The Court reiterated settled law that:
“Property allotted to the share of the father in an oral family partition takes the character of separate property in his hands qua his legal heirs.”
Relying on Karuppan Chettiar, Chander Sen, Yudhishter, and its own recent ruling in Sneha v. K. Sakthivel, the Bench held that upon the father’s death in 1990, succession opened under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, not survivorship.
Accordingly, the father’s 1/3rd share in Suit Item No.1 devolved upon his wives, sons, daughters, and the branch of his deceased daughter as Class-I heirs.
“Trial Court Erred In Denying Daughters Their Statutory Succession”
While upholding dismissal of the suit relating to Suit Item No.2 due to court auction sales and non-joinder of necessary parties, the High Court found the Trial Court’s dismissal of the entire suit legally unsustainable.
Reworking the shares mathematically, the Court held:
“Each of the Plaintiffs would be entitled to 9/144 share in Suit Item No.1.”
Applying Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act (feeding the grant by estoppel), the Court further held that the second defendant’s interest ultimately accrued to the first defendant, resulting in the following final allocation:
Plaintiff 1: 9/144
Plaintiff 2: 9/144
Defendants 6 & 7 (together): 12/144
First Defendant: 114/144
The Madras High Court’s ruling strikes a careful balance between respecting pre-2005 family arrangements and enforcing statutory succession rights. While daughters cannot unsettle an old oral partition saved by law, they cannot be excluded from the father’s separate share, which must devolve strictly under Section 8. The judgment is a precise reminder that coparcenary and succession operate in distinct legal fields, and neither can eclipse the other.
Date of Decision: 03 February 2026
