Oral Relinquishment Cannot Defeat Lawful Heirship: Madras High Court Affirms Daughters’ Equal Share Despite Sale Deed

In a significant affirmation of daughters’ inheritance rights, the Madras High Court upheld the trial court’s decree granting 3/6th share to the plaintiffs in a family partition dispute, firmly rejecting the defence of oral relinquishment and partition. Justice M. Jothiraman, while dismissing Appeal, emphatically ruled, “A plea of oral relinquishment without credible evidence is unsustainable. Rights cannot be brushed aside through bare allegations.”

The case involved a challenge by the seventh defendant, G. Shanthi, against the preliminary decree of the II Additional District Court, Salem, which had rejected her claim to a major share in the family property. The plaintiffs, daughters and legal heirs of late Chinnusamy Padayachi, had approached the court seeking partition and declaration that a sale deed executed by certain male heirs in favour of the seventh defendant was not binding on their rightful shares.

Justice Jothiraman, addressing the core contention, held:
“The defendants have failed to discharge the burden of proving either oral partition or relinquishment by the plaintiffs. In the absence of necessary witnesses, proper documentation, or even the appearance of primary stakeholders like the third defendant, such claims remain hollow and incapable of defeating statutory inheritance rights.”

Rejecting the seventh defendant’s argument that the suit property was ancestral, the Court held:
“The suit property was purchased in the exclusive name of Chinnusamy Padayachi, and without convincing evidence of ancestral contribution or partition, it remains absolute property devolving equally among legal heirs.”

The court further clarified the limited effect of the impugned sale deed, stating:
“The sale deed dated 28.03.2011 executed by the third defendant and his children in favour of the seventh defendant can only transfer what was legally owned by the seller — namely his 1/6th share. The rights of the plaintiffs cannot be extinguished by such a sale.”

Significantly, the Court protected the plaintiffs’ claim without resorting to nullifying the sale deed entirely. Justice Jothiraman observed:
“There is no necessity to declare the sale deed null and void in entirety. It remains valid to the extent of the share belonging to the third defendant. This approach balances the rights of bona fide purchasers without compromising the rightful claims of co-sharers.”

Addressing the consistent absence of evidentiary support from the defendants, the Court noted:
“Neither documentary evidence nor neutral witnesses have been produced to substantiate the claim of oral partition. The defendants 1 and 2 admitted the plaintiffs’ share, and the third defendant conveniently abstained from the witness box. Such silence speaks volumes against the case of the appellant.”

Ultimately, the Court refused to interfere with the trial court’s decree, reiterating the position of law that “oral partition must be proved with unimpeachable clarity and corroboration” and observing, “the plaintiffs have lawfully established their entitlement, and the decree of partition cannot be disturbed on conjectures.”

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with Justice Jothiraman confirming the preliminary decree passed by the trial court, securing equal property rights for the plaintiffs in accordance with Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Date of Decision: 01/07/2025