Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8

“Saving Clause Protects Old Family Arrangements, Yet Father’s Share Cannot Bypass Class-I Heirs”, In a significant clarification on the interplay between coparcenary rights and intestate succession, the Madras High Court  has held that while pre-2005 oral family arrangements are immune from challenge under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, such arrangements cannot divert the father’s allotted share away from statutory succession under Section 8. The Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice R. Sakthivel emphasised that saving old partitions does not mean freezing succession rights.

“Section 6 Saves The Partition, Not The Devolution Of Father’s Share”

The core legal controversy revolved around whether daughters, though recognised as coparceners by birth under the 2005 amendment, could still claim a share in ancestral property that was already subjected to an oral family arrangement prior to 20.12.2005.

The Court answered this with precision. While acknowledging that the plaintiffs-daughters were indeed coparceners under amended Section 6, the Bench held that sub-section (5) of Section 6 expressly saves oral partitions and family arrangements effected before the cut-off date.

Relying on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, the Court observed that:

“The oral family partition / oral family arrangement took place before December 20, 2005, and hence, it is saved under sub-section (5) of amended Section 6.”

Thus, the daughters were barred from reopening or unsettling the family arrangement, even though they otherwise enjoyed coparcenary status.

“Once Partition Takes Place, Father Steps Out Of Coparcenary”

The judgment then moved to a subtler but decisive legal distinction. The Court clarified that once an oral family partition is effected between a father and his sons, the father’s share ceases to be coparcenary property.

The Bench categorically held:

“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.”

This finding marks a crucial doctrinal point: Section 6 governs coparcenary, but Section 8 governs succession, and the moment the father receives a defined share, the field shifts from survivorship to succession.

“Daughters Excluded As Coparceners, Included As Heirs”

Applying this principle, the Court ruled that although the daughters could not question the oral family arrangement as coparceners, they re-entered the picture as Class-I heirs upon the father’s death in 1990.

The Bench explained that:

“Upon his demise, succession opened under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and his 1/3 share shall devolve upon his legal heirs.”

This meant that wives, sons, daughters, and the branch of a pre-deceased daughter were all legally entitled to the father’s share, irrespective of earlier family arrangements.

“Trial Court Confused Coparcenary Bar With Succession Extinction”

Correcting the Trial Court’s approach, the High Court held that the lower court erroneously treated the saving of the oral partition as extinguishing all claims of daughters. The Bench made it clear that:

“Saving a partition does not amount to extinguishing the statutory right of succession.”

By failing to recognise the distinct legal consequences of partition and succession, the Trial Court wrongly dismissed the suit in its entirety.

“Feeding The Grant By Estoppel Cannot Defeat Heirs’ Rights”

The Court further applied Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, holding that the second defendant’s sale in favour of the first defendant could operate only to the extent of the interest he lawfully held. Any excess conveyance could not prejudice the rights of other Class-I heirs, including the plaintiffs.

This ensured that alienations between co-sharers cannot be used as a tool to defeat intestate succession.

This judgment stands out for its clear demarcation between coparcenary rights under Section 6 and inheritance rights under Section 8. The Madras High Court has decisively ruled that old family arrangements may survive constitutional equality reforms, but they cannot override statutory succession. Daughters may be barred from reopening a partition, yet they cannot be written out of their father’s estate.

Date of Decision: 03 February 2026