Can daughters lose property rights? Why Madras HC rejected sisters’ claim | Personal Finance

A woman’s right to inherit property does not end after marriage. However, a recent Madras High Court judgement shows why heirs cannot remain inactive for decades and then expect a partition claim to succeed solely on the basis of their legal status.

 

In M Pandiarajan vs Tmt Andal, decided on September 10, the court allowed the brother’s second appeal and set aside earlier decrees granting the two sisters a one-third share each. The case involved properties linked to the siblings’ parents and raised questions around co-ownership, ouster, an unproved Will and failure to include necessary parties in a partition suit.

 

The ruling was based on the facts and evidence of this particular dispute, according to legal experts. It does not dilute the statutory inheritance rights of daughters.

  

Why did the sisters lose the mother’s property claim?

The sisters, Andal and Ambika, claimed a one-third share each in properties left by their mother, Sundarathachi, who died in 1991 without a Will.

 

The court examined an earlier 1953 Will made by their maternal grandmother, Subbammal. It found that the Will clearly intended the properties to pass to Sundarathachi’s children, whether male or female. The court therefore held that the sisters were co-owners and that their right to claim a share was preserved.

 

However, the court then considered the brother’s plea that the sisters had been ousted from the properties.

 

Alay Razvi, managing partner at law firm Accord Juris, said the judgement should not be interpreted as weakening daughters’ inheritance rights.

 

“A co-heir does not ordinarily lose a share merely because another co-owner manages the property or remains in possession for several years,” Razvi said. However, where hostile and exclusive possession, knowledge of that claim, prolonged non-participation and other supporting circumstances are established, a court can accept a plea of ouster.

 

In this case, the court relied heavily on the evidence given by the elder sister. She said she had lived away after her marriage in 1971 and had not participated in the joint enjoyment of the properties or received income from them. The court also noted that the sisters did not seek partition until 2009, almost two decades after their mother’s death.

 

What does ‘ouster’ mean?

Ouster is not simply the fact that one co-owner is using a property while another lives elsewhere.

 

Grahita Agarwal, senior associate at B. Shanker Advocates LLP, said the case illustrates the difference between having a legal entitlement and being able to obtain a court decree in a partition dispute.

 

“Ouster among co-owners requires more than mere exclusive possession,” she said. Courts examine the entire course of conduct, including pleadings, admissions and surrounding circumstances.

 

The Madras High Court also stressed that ouster has to be decided on the basis of pleadings and proof, rather than merely the passage of time. In this case, however, the sisters’ own evidence, their prolonged absence from the properties, non-participation in income and inaccuracies in the list of properties collectively supported the brother’s case.

 

A weak property record can hurt a partition claim

The sisters produced documents such as chitta and adangal records. But the court found that these records were in the name of their deceased mother even years after her death and therefore did not establish the sisters’ joint possession.

 

Soayib Qureshi, partner, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, said heirs should not assume that ownership rights are adequately protected merely because their names appear in family documents.

 

Heirs should assert their share promptly, get revenue records mutated in the names of all relevant heirs and maintain evidence of income or enjoyment from the property, he said. Families should also formalise arrangements through a registered family settlement instead of relying on informal understandings.

 

What happened to the father’s properties?

The dispute also involved 26 properties associated with the father, Murugaiah Pillai, who died in 2009.

 

He had executed a Will in 2005. However, the court found that the Will had not been properly proved. Under the evidentiary requirements applicable to the case, an attesting witness had to establish that the testator signed the Will in the witness’s presence. The witnesses did not provide that evidence.

 

Siddharth Batra, advocate on record, Supreme Court of India, said that when a Will is challenged, its execution and surrounding circumstances become important. Registration is not mandatory, he said, but the testator’s signature and proper attestation by two witnesses are crucial to proving the document.

 

The court also found that the sisters had not included the father’s children who stood to receive property under the Will as necessary parties. Consequently, the partition claim concerning those properties could not be sustained.

 

What should property heirs do?

 

The judgement highlights three practical lessons.

 

• Do not delay asserting inheritance rights. Send a written notice and seek partition or settlement where necessary.
• Keep property records updated. Revenue, municipal and other relevant records should accurately reflect the interests of the heirs.
• Check the property list before filing a case. An incorrect schedule can weaken a partition claim.

 

Ensure a Will is properly executed and proved. A Will that cannot satisfy the required evidentiary conditions may fail in court.

 

Ankit Rajgarhia, partner, Bahuguna Law Associates, said possession by one co-heir is ordinarily presumed to be for the benefit of all co-heirs. To establish ouster, the possessing co-owner must show an open, hostile and exclusive assertion of title brought to the other heir’s knowledge. He also pointed to the sisters’ omission of the brother’s children from the partition proceedings as a separate problem concerning the father’s estate.

 

Sneha S. Agicha, advocate with D M Harish & Co. Advocates, said the court examined the sisters’ rights, the evidence on possession and enjoyment, the alleged ouster, the father’s Will and the failure to include necessary parties. The second appeal was ultimately allowed and the earlier partition decrees were set aside.

 

The judgement does not take away daughters’ inheritance rights. Instead, it underlines the importance of asserting those rights in time and maintaining clear records of ownership, possession and income. In a property dispute, a valid claim can still fail if the evidence does not support it or if procedural requirements are not met.