Madras HC Gives Grandson 1/9 Of Ancestral Estate, Holds Grandmother’s Gifts Do Not Bind Her Daughters’ Shares

The suit properties had belonged to Pongiya Gounder and devolved on his son, Perumal Gounder, whose heirs included his wife, Nallayammal, and daughters, Masiriyammal and Kuppayammal.

The appellant, a legal heir of Masiriyammal, sought partition and challenged two settlement deeds executed by Nallayammal in 2007 in favour of the second and third defendants.

The defendants contended that Perumal Gounder died before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and that Nallayammal inherited the properties absolutely.

The trial court decreed partition of 1/12 share to the plaintiff but declined to declare the deeds invalid; the first appellate court affirmed. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.

The Court applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended in 2005, and the rule in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma that a daughter is a coparcener by birth, subject to the statutory limitations, where the property remains coparcenary property.

Relying on Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma and the Madras High Court Division Bench decision in N. Kalavathy v. Sriramulu Naidu, it stated that a coparcener’s gift of an undivided coparcenary interest to another coparcener without the others’ consent is void, while a co-owner may transfer her definite undivided share under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court distinguished a co-owner, who derives a defined share, from a coparcener.

The defendants did not prove their assertion that Perumal Gounder died before the 1956 Act commenced.

The Court also relied on the parties’ joint sale of property and Nallayammal’s settlement deeds as conduct inconsistent with her being the absolute owner.

It treated the properties as coparcenary property and, applying Vineeta Sharma, held that the daughters had coparcenary rights because no partition had occurred before the 2005 amendment.

The Court calculated Nallayammal’s share as 1/9 and each daughter’s share as 4/9. As a co-owner, Nallayammal could settle her own share, but not her daughters’ shares; the deeds were therefore not binding to that extent.

It granted the plaintiff a preliminary decree for 1/9 share in the suit properties.

By a correction order dated 30 October 2026, the Court directed that the references in paragraphs 15 and 18 to “1/8” and “4/8” be substituted with “1/9” and “4/9,” respectively, and that the direction to divide the property into eight shares be corrected to nine.