Will Not Proved as per Law—Daughters of Predeceased Son Entitled to Inheritance: Madras High Court Grants 1/3rd Share in Ancestral Property to Women Heirs

“Self-Acquisition Once Proved, Kartha Can Gift or Sell Without Consent of Other Coparceners” - Madras High Court, in a detailed and nuanced judgment, partly allowed a challenge to a Trial Court decree involving Hindu succession, joint family claims, and validity of alienations by a Kartha. The Court affirmed that properties proved to be self-acquired by the Kartha can be alienated without the consent of other family members, but found non-proof of a Will fatal to denying shares in another property. Consequently, the Court granted a 1/3rd share to the daughters of a predeceased son in Suit Item No.3, reversing the Trial Court’s dismissal to that extent.

“Burden to Prove Joint Family Nucleus Lies on the Claimant”: Court Upholds Kartha's Right to Alienate Self-Acquired Properties

The plaintiffs—daughters of Madhaiyan, a predeceased son of Summa Iruppa Gounder, claimed partition and declaration over three properties, contending these were joint family properties acquired from joint family income. They challenged the 1995 gift and sale deeds executed by Summa Iruppa Gounder in favour of his other descendants and a third party (Defendant No. 9), alleging they were without authority.

The Trial Court had dismissed the suit in entirety, holding that all three properties were self-acquired by Summa Iruppa Gounder, and hence, his alienations were valid. The plaintiffs appealed.

Justice R. Sakthivel, deciding the appeal, affirmed the Trial Court’s reasoning in relation to Suit Items 1 and 2, observing:

“In this case, there is no evidence to show the existence of any joint family property prior to the aforesaid Sale Deeds... The plaintiffs have failed to discharge their initial burden.”

The Court reiterated that entries in sale deeds, which make no reference to family or coparcenary property, strongly indicate individual acquisition.

“Kartha Can Alienate His Self-Acquired Property—Plaintiffs Cannot Demand Partition Therein”

Having established that Suit Items 1 and 2 were self-acquired, the Court held that Summa Iruppa Gounder was legally competent to execute the Sale Deed (Ex-A.4) and Gift Deed (Ex-A.5 / B.1).

It rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that the transactions were fraudulent or suspicious, noting that: “There are no pleadings for the same. Any contention without pleadings is not of much use.”

Moreover, the gift deed was proved in accordance with law, under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the attesting witness was examined and original deed was produced.

“Ex-A.5 – Gift Settlement Deed is proved... Thus, Ex-A.4 and Ex-A.5 are true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs.”

The Court found no fault with the Trial Court's dismissal of claims in Suit Items 1 and 2.

“Limitation Runs From Date of Knowledge—Women's Lack of Access Can Be a Factor”

The defendants contended that the suit was barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the gift and sale deeds were executed in 1995, and the suit was filed only in 2015.

However, the Court accepted the plaintiffs’ explanation that they came to know about these alienations only in 2012, and noted the historical disadvantages faced by women in asserting property rights, observing:

"It is highly probable and also natural that the plaintiffs were less connected with the Suit Properties, especially given the restricted position of women in property-related matters in the past."

Thus, the suit was held to be filed within limitation.

“Will Not Proved as per Law—Succession Opens in Favour of Class-I Heirs”

As regards Suit Item No.3, the defendants sought to deny any share to the plaintiffs by relying on a registered Will (Ex-B.2) allegedly executed by Summa Iruppa Gounder in favour of his other descendants.

However, the Court held: "The defendants did not examine any attesting witness... They failed to prove Ex-B.2 – Will as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

Since Succession opened on the death of Summa Iruppa Gounder in 2000, and the Will was not legally proved, the plaintiffs, as Class-I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, were held entitled to 1/3rd share in Suit Item No.3.

"The plaintiffs being the daughters of predeceased son – Madhaiyan, are the Class-I legal heirs... entitled to 1/3 share in Suit Item No.3."

Accordingly, the Madras High Court partly allowed the appeal:

“The Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court qua Suit Item Nos.1 and 2 is confirmed, and set aside qua Suit Item No.3.”

A preliminary decree was passed declaring the plaintiffs’ 1/3rd share in Suit Item No.3. However, considering the familial nature of the dispute, the Court made no order as to costs.

This judgment brings into focus multiple nuanced legal propositions:

• The burden of proving joint family character lies on the party asserting it.
• Self-acquired properties of a Kartha are freely alienable, even within a Hindu joint family.
• Lack of active possession or knowledge by women heirs does not defeat their inheritance rights.
• Unproved Wills cannot override statutory succession rights under the Hindu Succession Act.
• Limitation in declaration suits begins only from the date of knowledge, especially when women claimants are involved.

In sum, the ruling balances rigorous legal scrutiny with sensitivity to gender-based historical exclusions in property inheritance.

Date of Decision: 26 September 2025