Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1479

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
Muthulakshmi (Died), W/o.Chandrasekar – Appellant
Versus
Murugan @ Murugesan, S/o. Periyasamy – Respondent
A.S. NOS.2 AND 4 OF 2024,CROSS OBJ. NO.23 OF 2026,C.M.P. NO.97 OF 2024,IN A.S. NO.2 OF 2024, C.M.P. NOS.354 AND 357 OF 2024, IN A.S. NO.4 OF 2024, A.S.NO.2 OF 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.B. Arvind Srevatsa
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Sridhar for Mr.T.Balaji, Mr.A.Abdul Rahman for M/s.Marks Attorney, Mr.K.Anbarasan, Mr.M.Guruprasad

Under Hindu law both adopted children of a childless couple inherit equally with the surviving spouse; a gift settlement lacking a revocation clause cannot be cancelled unilaterally and binds only to the extent of the settlor's available share.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 15(1) - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 and Order XLI Rules 1 and 22 - Joint trial of suits for partition, declaration, cancellation of deeds and permanent injunction arising from intestate succession after multiple adoptions by a childless couple - Validity and extent of operation of sale deeds, gift settlement deeds, cancellation deeds, power of attorney and wills executed before and during pendency of suit.

(B) Proof of adoption is complete when supported by affidavits sworn before competent authorities, nomination documents, oral evidence of biological parents and judicial admissions; an admission in pleadings is a judicial admission requiring no further proof.

(C) A gift settlement deed cannot be revoked or cancelled unilaterally by the settlor in the absence of an express revocation clause; such unilateral cancellation is void and title already vested cannot be divested thereby.

(D) The maxim "Nemo dat quod non habet" applies; an executant of a deed can validly alienate only to the extent of the share actually available at the time of execution.

Facts of the case:
An extent of agricultural land stood in the absolute ownership of the wife of the first defendant who died intestate. The husband and two adopted children became her legal heirs. Disputes arose on the factum of the two adoptions and several alienations made by way of sale deeds, gift settlement deeds and subsequent cancellation deeds leading to three inter-connected suits for partition, declaration of title, cancellation and permanent injunction which were tried jointly.

Findings of Court:
Both the plaintiff and the second defendant are proved to be the adopted children of the deceased couple. Upon the wife's intestate death each of the three legal heirs became entitled to an equal one-third share. Sale deeds and gift settlement deeds executed prior to suit are valid only to the extent of shares actually available with the executants. The unilateral cancellation of the gift settlement, the subsequent gift settlement in favour of the plaintiff and the will are all invalid. After accounting for valid alienations the plaintiff is entitled to 12.5 cents in the suit property.

Issues: The principal questions framed were whether the second defendant is the sole adopted child and whether the plaintiff was also adopted, whether the gift settlement deed and its unilateral cancellation are valid, and to what extent the various sale deeds and other instruments bind the shares of the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Adoption stands established by contemporaneous affidavits, nomination forms and supporting oral evidence; equal shares devolve under Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act; unilateral cancellation of a gift settlement without a revocation clause is legally impermissible and alienations by co-sharers bind only to the extent of their available shares at the relevant time; pendente lite purchasers are co-owners but cannot claim equity in final decree proceedings.

Result: The appeal in A.S. No.2 of 2024 is partly allowed, the cross objection is dismissed and the suit in O.S. No.85 of 2007 is decreed in part declaring the plaintiff entitled to 12.5 cents with a preliminary decree for partition; the suit in O.S. No.16 of 2010 stands dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeals from partition decrees (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. pleadings on adoption and property alienations (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. trial court findings on deeds and shares (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. arguments on sole adoption and deed validity (Para 20 , 21)
5. both parties held adopted children by evidence (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. deeds valid to extent of hsa shares only (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. unilateral gift revocation invalid; will non-est (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
8. trial decree modified; co-owners no injunction (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1.Three Suits viz., O.S. No.85 of 2007, O.S. No.16 of 2010 and O.S. No.268 of 2015 were disposed of by the 'the II Additional District Court, Salem' ['Trial Court' for short] vide Separate Decrees and Common Judgment even dated April 27, 2023. Feeling aggrieved by the Common Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.85 of 2007, the second defendant therein (Muthulakshmi) has filed the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.2 of 2024 under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['C.P.C.' for short] praying to set aside the Common Judgment and Decree passed therein. While so, the plaintiff in O.S. No.85 of 2007 namely Murugan alias Murugesan has filed a Cross Objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C. in Cross Obj. No.23 of 2026 in A.S. No.2 of 2024 praying to set aside a portion of the Common Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.85 of 2007 and declare that he is entitled to 45.5 Cents in the suit properties, instead of 12.5 Cents as held by the Trial Court.

2. Further, feeling aggrieved by the Common Judgment and Decree passed in O.S. No.16 of 2010, the plaintiffs therein (Said Muthulakshmi and her children) have filed the Appeal Suit in A.S. No.4 of 2024 under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the Common Judgment and Decree passed therein.

3. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties herein will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit in O.S. No.85 of 2007.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

4. Case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant and one Rajammal are husband and wife and that they had no children. An extent of 67 Cents in Survey No.188/2 and an extent of 1 Acre 69 Cents in Survey No.188/3, totally 2 Acre 36 Cents Nanja land (now in Survey No.188/6) was owned by Rajammal by way of Sale Deed dated August 10, 1965, registered as Document No.5280 of 1965 on the file of Salem West Registrar's Office. The same is the suit property in O.S. No.85 of 2007. Hereinafter, said property shall refer to the suit property unless otherwise mentioned.

4.1. The plaintiff is the biological son of the first defendant's brother, while the second defendant is the biological daughter of Rajammal's sister. The plaintiff and the second defendant were adopted by the first defendant and Rajammal. First defendant and Rajammal solemnized the marriage of the second defendant on a grand scale. At the time of her marriage, necessary Sridhana, including 35 sovereigns of gold jewels and household articles worth about Rs.3,00,000/-, were given to the second defendant. The plaintiff secured employment in a Bank at Mumbai and has been working there. Rajammal passed away intestate on August 24, 1996. The plaintiff as an adopted son performed the funeral rites of the deceased Rajammal.

4.2. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are each entitled to 1/3 share in the suit properties. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from the locality, defendants 1, 2 and 4 colluded together and alienated an extent of 1 Acre in the suit property in favour of defendants 3, 5 and 6 on July 18, 2005, without the plaintiff's knowledge.

4.3. Subsequently, on November 15, 2005, the first defendant allegedly executed a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the second defendant in respect of 1/2 share in 1 Acre 33 Cents of suit property. It is a fabric