Co-owner may validly gift undivided absolute interest in inherited property without consent of other co-sharers.

The Appellant-Plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit properties based on a registered gift deed (Document No. 871 of 1990) executed by her grandfather, Kuttiyappa Goundar (Defendant No. 1)

The properties originally belonged to Kuttiyappa’s deceased wife, Muniyammal, who inherited them from her father

Defendant No. 3 (respondent), Muniyammal’s daughter, contested the suit, claiming the gift deed was invalid as Kuttiyappa had no exclusive right to the property

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff

the First Appellate Court reversed it, holding that upon Muniyammal’s intestate death, the property devolved equally upon her husband and daughter under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming that the gift deed for the entire property was void without the co-sharer's consent

1. Whether the properties of a Hindu female dying intestate devolve exclusively upon her husband or jointly with her children under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

2. Whether a co-sharer of an undivided share in absolute property requires the consent of other co-sharers to gift their specific interest.

3. Whether the Court can grant a lesser relief of declaration for a partial share when the plaintiff fails to prove absolute ownership of the whole property under Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC.

The Court applied Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which specifies that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves upon the sons and daughters and the husband

It further distinguished such absolute property from 'coparcenary property,' noting that an undivided share in the former can be alienated without the consent of other co-owners

Finally, it applied Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which empowers the Court to grant a smaller relief than the larger relief claimed if the entitlement is established

The Court observed that because Muniyammal died intestate, her husband (Kuttiyappa) and daughter (Muniammal) inherited equal undivided half shares

The Court found the High Court’s reasoning flawed regarding the "consent" requirement; since the property was Kuttiyappa’s absolute interest and not coparcenary property, he had the legal right to gift his undivided half share to the plaintiff without his daughter's consent

However, as the gift deed purported to transfer the entire property, it was only valid to the extent of his actual half share

Regarding the relief of possession, the Court reasoned that since the property remained unpartitioned by metes and bounds, the plaintiff could not recover possession of a specific portion until a formal partition occurred

The Court held that the plaintiff is the lawful owner of an undivided half share of the suit properties via the gift deed ... and granted a declaration of title limited to the half share and granted the plaintiff liberty to file a separate suit for partition by metes and bounds