The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that daughters, as coparceners under the amended Hindu Succession Act, 1956, cannot be deprived of their statutory share in ancestral property through informal or unrecorded partitions lacking explicit relinquishment. This judgment clarifies the legal threshold for validating family partitions post-2005 amendment and reinforces the primacy of statutory rights over customary arrangements.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiffs, Bhog Bai and Parvati, daughters of late Tarachand Sahu, filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition, possession, and permanent injunction over ancestral land measuring 3.33 hectares. They alleged that upon Tarachand’s death on 19.11.2011, all legal heirs - including themselves - became co-owners of the property, and that the defendants, including their brothers and step-siblings, were interfering with their rights. The defendants contested the claim, asserting that a prior partition had already taken place in 2011, duly recorded in revenue records, and that the plaintiffs had accepted the arrangement without objection.
Key Facts
- Late Tarachand Sahu died on 19.11.2011.
- The suit property comprised multiple Khasra numbers totaling 3.33 hectares in Gariyaband district.
- Tarachand had two wives: Ramhin Bai (mother of defendants Leelu Ram and Makhan) and Mukhaiya Bai (mother of defendants Makhan and Urmila).
- The plaintiffs (Bhog Bai and Parvati) were daughters of Tarachand from his first marriage.
- A purported partition deed dated 25.07.2011 (Ex. D-8) was produced by defendants, claiming distribution among sons and widow.
- Revenue records were mutated on 06.03.2013 by the Tahsildar, Chhura, in Revenue Case No. 9-A/27/2012-13, reflecting the partition.
- The plaintiffs were present during the alleged partition but did not sign any document.
- No written relinquishment deed or affidavit from the daughters was produced.
- The plaintiffs filed the suit on 15.01.2013.
Procedural History
- 15.01.2013: Civil Suit No. 04-A/2013 filed by plaintiffs before Civil Judge, Class-I, Gariyaband.
- 27.07.2017: Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that partition had been validly effected and recorded in revenue records.
- 11.05.2018: First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Gariyaband) allowed the appeal, reversing the Trial Court’s decision.
- 28.03.2018: Second Appeal (SA No. 382 of 2018) filed by defendant Makhan under Section 100 CPC.
- 06.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Plaintiffs (Appellants before First Appellate Court): Argued that they were coparceners under the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act and had never relinquished their rights. The partition deed did not mention their names or shares, and their mere presence at the meeting did not constitute consent.
Defendants (Appellants before High Court): Contended that a family partition had occurred on 25.07.2011, with the consent of all parties, including the daughters, and was subsequently recognized by the revenue authorities. They relied on Ratnam Chettiar v. S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar to argue that once a partition is acted upon, it cannot be reopened.
Relief Sought
The plaintiffs sought:
- Declaration of joint title to the suit property with all legal heirs.
- Partition of their respective shares.
- Delivery of possession.
- Permanent injunction against interference.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, grants daughters coparcenary rights that cannot be extinguished by an informal partition lacking explicit relinquishment or lawful documentation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for defendant Makhan argued that:
- A valid partition occurred on 25.07.2011, evidenced by the partition deed (Ex. D-8) and subsequent mutation in revenue records on 06.03.2013.
- The plaintiffs were present at the partition meeting and did not object at the time, thereby estopping them from challenging it later.
- The Supreme Court in Ratnam Chettiar v. S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar held that family partitions, once acted upon, attain finality.
- Reopening such partitions without proof of fraud, coercion, or undue influence violates the principle of finality in property disputes.
For the Respondent
Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that:
- The 2005 amendment conferred equal coparcenary rights upon daughters, which are statutory and cannot be waived by implication or silence.
- The partition deed (Ex. D-8) did not mention the daughters’ names or shares, nor did it bear their signatures.
- Mere presence at a family meeting does not constitute consent or relinquishment under law.
- Revenue mutation alone cannot validate an illegal or incomplete partition.
- The First Appellate Court correctly applied the amended law and properly appreciated evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court emphasized that the scope of a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly limited to substantial questions of law. Findings of fact by the First Appellate Court are binding unless perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled legal principles.
The Court noted that the Trial Court had erred in assuming that revenue mutation and presence at a meeting equated to a valid partition. The First Appellate Court, however, undertook a proper re-appreciation of evidence and found no proof that the daughters had relinquished their rights.
"Even in the cross-examination before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs have only admitted their presence at the time of partition, but no evidence has been brought on record to show that they had consciously given up or relinquished their share."
The Court held that the 2005 amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act fundamentally altered the legal landscape: daughters became coparceners by birth, with equal rights as sons. A partition that excludes daughters or fails to specify their shares cannot be deemed lawful.
The Court distinguished Ratnam Chettiar on the ground that it pertained to a pre-2005 scenario, where daughters had no coparcenary rights. Post-amendment, the statutory right is non-negotiable unless expressly waived in writing.
The Court further observed that revenue records, while prima facie evidence, cannot override statutory rights. Mutation based on an unrecorded, non-consensual partition does not validate the transfer.
The First Appellate Court’s conclusion - that the partition was invalid due to absence of relinquishment and non-compliance with legal formalities - was found to be well-reasoned, evidence-based, and legally sound.
The Verdict
The Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 11.05.2018 were upheld. The plaintiffs are entitled to their equal shares in the ancestral property as coparceners under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The partition deed dated 25.07.2011 is declared invalid as against the daughters. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for partition and possession in accordance with law, with costs to be determined.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Rights Trump Customary Practice
- Practitioners must now argue that any partition excluding daughters or failing to specify their shares is void ab initio under the 2005 amendment.
- Oral agreements or family consensus without written relinquishment are legally insufficient to extinguish coparcenary rights.
- Revenue records alone cannot validate a partition that violates statutory inheritance rights.
Relinquishment Must Be Explicit and Documented
- A daughter’s mere presence at a partition meeting does not constitute consent.
- To waive rights, a clear, written, and voluntary relinquishment deed must be executed and registered.
- Courts will scrutinize the timing, context, and voluntariness of any alleged relinquishment.
Burden of Proof Lies on the Party Asserting Partition
- The party claiming a valid partition bears the burden of proving:
- (a) That all coparceners were parties to the partition;
- (b) That shares were allocated in accordance with law;
- (c) That daughters explicitly relinquished their rights.
- Absent any of these, the partition will be set aside.
