Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. MALA, J.
B. Rajendran S/o Balaraman – Appellant
Versus
Subramani S/o Balaraman – Respondent
AS No. 645 of 2023, CMP No. 22210 of 2023
Decided On : 20-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.C. Karl Marx
For the Respondent: M.A. Velmurugan

A relinquishment of rights in immovable property is legally ineffective unless executed via a registered instrument; oral agreements claiming such relinquishments are insufficient to override statutory succession rights.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 15 - Partition - Suit for partition and separate possession - Burden of proof regarding oral family arrangement - Requirement of registered instrument for relinquishment of immovable property. (Paras 17, 22)

(B) Property Law - Relinquishment of rights in an immovable property - An oral agreement to relinquish interest in real estate is legally insufficient - Any such transfer of right must be via a registered instrument - In the absence of such documentation, the claim remains unsubstantiated. (Paras 22, 23)

(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - An appellate court should not interfere with the factual findings of a trial court unless there is manifest perversity, illegality, or an error in appreciating material evidence on record. (Paras 13, 21)

Facts of the case:
The suit sought partition of a property devolved upon the legal heirs following the intestate death of their mother. The defendant contended that an oral family arrangement had been reached, under which the plaintiff allegedly relinquished his interest in the suit property in exchange for the defendant forfeiting a claim to public employment. The trial court rejected this contention, noting the absence of evidence for the oral arrangement and the legal requirement for written instruments in property matters.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the property devolved equally upon the legal heirs under the relevant succession laws. It further concluded that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged oral arrangement. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that relinquishment of interest in immovable property necessitates a registered document.

Issues: 1. Whether the burden of proving an oral family arrangement was discharged by the party claiming it. 2. Whether the relinquishment of an interest in immovable property can be validly effected through an oral agreement. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession.

Ratio Decidendi: Relinquishment of rights in immovable property cannot be effected through an oral agreement or understanding; it must strictly be executed through a registered instrument. In the absence of evidence supporting the existence of an oral family arrangement, the statutory rules of succession for an estate left by an intestate owner prevail.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of facts and ownership history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 15)
2. parties argument regarding existence of oral family settlement. (Para 7 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. assessment of evidence and findings on succession. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 26)
4. relinquishment of immovable property requires registered instrument. (Para 22 , 23 , 25)
5. final dismissal of appeal and confirmation of decree. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

N. MALA, J.

1. The First Appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2023, made in OS.No.3093/2020, by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The facts in a nutshell, are as follows.

4. The plaintiff is the co-owner of the property and the defendant is his elder brother. The plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.3093/2020 for partition of his half share in the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from in any manner, effecting mutation in revenue records or alienating or encumbering the suit property.

5. The plaintiff and the defendant are the sons of Late V. Balaraman. The plaintiff's father was the absolute owner of the suit property measuring an extent of 1200 sq.ft., comprised in RS.No.1965, Door No.13, New Door No.12, Parthasarathy Pillai Street, 5^th Lane, Old Washermenpet, Chennai. The plaintiff's father purchased the property from one Kothandam Pillai, under a registered Sale Deed dated 05.06.1975 and ever since the sale in his favour, the plaintiff's father was in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, the plaintiff's father executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his wife on 20.10.1983. Thereafter, the plaintiff's father, died on 15.08.1990, leaving behind the plaintiff's mother, himself and the defendant as his legal heirs.

6. The plaintiff's case is that his father, during his life time, had purchased another property in Naidupet, Andhra Pradesh, which the defendant sold without his consent and appropriated the entire sale proceeds. When the plaintiff demanded his share of the sale proceeds, the defendant acted in a high handed manner. Thereafter, the plaintiff tried to mediate in the presence of the elders, but the same failed. The plaintiff therefore, issued a legal notice to the defendant on 04.03.2020, for partition of the family properties. However, the defendant neither replied nor came forward for partition. Since the plaintiff came to know that the defendant was trying to mutate the revenue records, without the consent of the plaintiff, left with no other option, the plaintiff filed the above suit for partition and for permanent injunction.

7. The defendant, in his written statement, admitted the relationship. The defendant also admitted that his father had purchased the suit property and settled the same in favour of their mother. The defendant however stated that the plaintiff had suppressed several facts and approached the Court with unclean hands. The defendant further stated that his father was working in Zone-I, Chennai Corporation and died in harness. The defendant, being the eldest son, applied for compassionate appointment to the Corporation, but however, on the request of his mother to give up his claim to the job in favour of the plaintiff, he agreed to give up the job. The defendant, contended that since he agreed to his mother's request, his mother mediated a family arrangement regarding the suit property under which the plaintiff agreed to relinquish his right in the suit property in consideration of the defendant forfeiting his claim to the Government job. The defendant further stated that pursuant to the family arrangement, and post his marriage on 09.09.2022, he continued to reside in the suit property along with his mother, whereas the plaintiff, soon after his marriage on 06.06.1996, left the suit property and was living independently with hi