Unproved oral partition cannot defeat intestate heirs’ equal shares in self-acquired property.

The plaintiffs and defendants were the legal heirs of Chengaiya Naidu and Kusalabai. Chengaiya Naidu had purchased the suit property at Choolaimedu, Chennai, under a registered sale deed dated 6 November 1965 and subsequently constructed a residential building on it.

He died intestate on 5 November 2001, and his wife Kusalabai later died on 28 July 2014, leaving the parties to succeed to the property.

The plaintiffs alleged that the property continued to be joint and that Defendant No. 1 had been collecting rent without accounting for their shares. They sought partition and permanent injunction.

The appellants, Defendants 1 and 2, contended that Chengaiya Naidu had orally partitioned the property during his lifetime, allotting the eastern portion to the plaintiffs and the western portion to the defendants.

The III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, held that the property was the self-acquired property of Chengaiya Naidu, that the alleged oral partition was not proved, and that the parties were entitled to equal shares.

It passed a preliminary decree directing division of the “B” Schedule property into six equal shares and granted permanent injunction against interference with the plaintiffs’ possession.

Defendants 1 and 2 appealed under Section 96 CPC.

Whether there had been a valid oral partition of the suit property during the lifetime of Chengaiya Naidu?

Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to partition, equal shares, and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property?

The Court applied the principle that a self-acquired property of a Hindu male dying intestate devolves upon his Class I legal heirs in equal shares under Section 8 read with the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, subject to the statutory devolution of the share of any predeceased heir.

It further applied the rule that a plea of oral partition must be specifically pleaded and established by reliable evidence; separate possession, construction expenditure, or payment of family debts, by themselves, do not prove a completed partition.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that the party asserting an oral partition bears the evidentiary burden of proving it.

The appeal against the civil decree was considered under Section 96 CPC.

The Court accepted that the property had been purchased in Chengaiya Naidu’s name under Ex.A1 and was his self-acquired property.

Since he died intestate, his surviving wife and children, and the relevant legal heirs of the deceased child, succeeded to the estate in equal shares.

The appellants’ assertion of an oral partition was not supported by a registered instrument, mutation of revenue records, evidence of panchayatdars, or other convincing material. The alleged allocation of eastern and western portions therefore remained unproved.

The loan documents did not establish that Defendant No. 1 had acquired exclusive rights.

Ex.B1 showed that the loan stood in Chengaiya Naidu’s name, while the subsequent repayments by Defendant No. 1 did not prove either exclusive ownership or the alleged oral partition.

Further, Defendant No. 1 had acknowledged in Ex.B6 that he possessed only a 1/6th share in the property, which contradicted his claim of exclusive entitlement.

The Court accordingly found that the Trial Court had correctly rejected the defence of oral partition and had properly granted a preliminary decree for equal division and consequential injunction.

It held that no valid oral partition had been proved and that the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed to their equal shares in the self-acquired property of Chengaiya Naidu.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and preliminary decree dated 17 July 2025 in O.S. No. 6540 of 2018 were confirmed, including division of the “B” Schedule property into six equal shares and the permanent injunction.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.