Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned partition of ancestral property. The appellant, S., and the respondent, A., are siblings, children of late Shankar Joshi. The suit properties are land bearing Gat No.27 admeasuring 21.5 R and a house constructed thereon. These, along with land bearing Gat No.28, were ancestral properties of late Narayan Vinayak Joshi, the grandfather. After the death of Narayan and Shankar, the names of Shankar's wife Shakuntala, son Shekhar (appellant) and daughter Anita (respondent) were mutated in the revenue records in respect of the suit properties and Gat No.28. Subsequently, on the basis of an affidavit submitted by Anita, her name was deleted from the revenue records. A registered partition deed dated 25 June 1993 was executed between Shakuntala and Shekhar on one side and Suhas, son of Narayan's other son Waman, on the other side. Under that partition, Gat No.28 went to Suhas, while Shakuntala and Shekhar retained Gat No.27 and the house. On 25 March 2013, Shakuntala executed a relinquishment deed in favour of Shekhar, conveying her share in the suit property. Anita then filed Special Civil Suit No.131 of 2015 seeking declaration, perpetual injunction, partition and separate possession, claiming a one-half share in the suit properties and challenging the relinquishment deed as not binding on her. She also sought mesne profits of Rs.2,00,000 per year. The trial court decreed the suit in part, holding that the suit properties were ancestral properties of both parties, that the relinquishment deed dated 25 March 2013 was obtained by fraud, and that Anita had a one-half share; it declared the relinquishment deed null and void and directed partition of the agricultural land by sending the decree to the collector, and ordered an enquiry into mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. The first appellate court, in Regular Civil Appeal No.11 of 2020, partly allowed the appeal. It reversed the finding on the validity of the relinquishment deed, holding it legal and binding on Anita. Consequently, it redetermined the shares as one-third for Anita and two-third for Shekhar. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the lower courts that Anita still had some right in the suit properties, Shekhar filed the present second appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal on three substantial questions of law: (i) whether a coparcener can orally relinquish his or her rights in ancestral property in favour of another coparcener or if a written and registered document is necessary; (ii) whether oral relinquishment can be presumed merely from a document signed for deletion of name from revenue records when that document is silent about relinquishment; and (iii) whether non-objection to grant of share in ancestral land to another coparcener of a different family unit leads to a presumption of relinquishment of share within one's own family unit. The appellant's counsel argued that Anita had expressly relinquished her rights orally, confirmed by an affidavit dated 22 July 1991; that she had accepted relinquishment in respect of Gat No.28 and therefore could not question relinquishment in respect of Gat No.27; and that the 1994 partition specifically recorded her relinquishment. The respondent's counsel opposed the appeal. The court reserved judgment on 12 August 2026 and pronounced it on 20 August 2026; the final decision is not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Coparcenary Rights - Oral Relinquishment - Not mentioned - The second appeal raised the question whether a coparcener can orally relinquish his or her rights in ancestral property in favour of another coparcener or whether a written and registered document is necessary to evidence such relinquishment. The lower courts had accepted an oral relinquishment by the plaintiff based on an affidavit and revenue record deletion, while the defendant also relied on a subsequent relinquishment deed by the mother. The High Court admitted the appeal to consider this issue (Para 7). B) Revenue Records - Proof of Relinquishment - Presumption from Deletion of Name - Not mentioned - The appeal questioned whether oral relinquishment can be presumed merely on the basis of a document signed for deletion of a coparcener's name from revenue records, when that document is silent about any relinquishment. The trial and appellate courts differed on the effect of the plaintiff's affidavit and revenue mutation entries (Para 7). C) Family Arrangement - Effect of Consent to Partition - Relinquishment Qua Family Unit - Not mentioned - The court framed whether a coparcener's non-objection to grant of share in ancestral land to another coparcener forming part of a different family unit leads to a presumption that he or she has also relinquished his or her share in the land qua member of his or her own family unit. The appellant argued that the plaintiff's acceptance of partition in respect of Gat No.28 estopped her from claiming any share in Gat No.27 (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a coparcener can orally relinquish rights in ancestral property in favour of another coparcener; whether oral relinquishment can be presumed from a document signed only for deletion of name from revenue records; whether non-objection to grant of share to another coparcener of a different family unit leads to presumption of relinquishment of share within one's own family unit
Law Points
- Oral relinquishment of coparcenary rights may require written and registered instrument
- deletion of name from revenue records alone may not prove relinquishment
- silence in a document cannot support an inference of relinquishment
- non-objection to partition in respect of one property does not automatically relinquish share in another property
- validity of relinquishment deed executed by mother in favour of one coparcener affects shares
