SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 3134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S.
Velayudhan S/o Kozhissery Raman – Appellant
Versus
Kuttooli D/o Cheriya Upperan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Philip Antony Chacko, K.A. Anas
For the Respondent: G. Sreekumar

Judgement Key Points

The legal judgment emphasizes that a voluntary partition deed conferring rights on a female heir is valid, even if there were prior restrictions under traditional inheritance laws. The key argument is that once the parties voluntarily and consciously execute a registered partition deed, the rights conferred therein are legally binding, irrespective of the customary law restrictions that existed before the enactment of relevant statutes (!) (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court underscores that the manner of division agreed upon in the partition deed cannot be challenged after the death of the parties unless there is evidence of undue influence, coercion, or fraud. The execution of a registered deed, which explicitly confers rights, creates a contractual arrangement that overrides outdated inheritance restrictions (!) (!) .

The judgment also clarifies that the nature of the property—whether self-acquired or ancestral—does not diminish the validity of a voluntary agreement to confer rights, provided the parties have acted with full consent. The court highlights that the property in question was self-acquired, and thus, the conferral of rights through the partition deed was a matter of conscious agreement rather than inheritance by default (!) (!) .

In summary, the argument notes that a legally executed, registered partition deed, which explicitly confers rights on a female heir, is valid and enforceable, regardless of prior customary restrictions or the nature of the property. The parties’ clear intention and consent are central to the validity of such arrangements, and subsequent challenges based solely on traditional inheritance law are not sustainable once the deed is executed with full knowledge and agreement (!) (!) (!) (!) .


JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.364 of 2013, a suit for partition, filed before the Third Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode. The suit was decreed, finding that the plaint B schedule property was partible. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred A.S. No.72 of 2015, before the Additional District Court-I, Kozhikode, which was allowed by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The plaint B schedule property originally belonged to one Purankal Naragasseri Perachan and Purankal Naragasseri Unni (for short, ‘Unni’), having been acquired by virtue of document No.1444 of 1916. While so, Unni died, and on his death, his right over the plaint B schedule property devolved upon his children Unniatha and Cheriya Upperan. Subsequently, on the death of Cheriya Upperan, his right over the plaint B schedule property devolved upon his wife Chirutha and son Unni @ Bhaskaran. On the death of Purankal Naragasseri Perachan, his right over the plaint B schedule property devolved upon his legal heirs. On 11.8.1958, a partition deed was entered between the legal heirs of the Pur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top