The Supreme Court of India, in a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, has ruled that a person holding an undivided absolute share in a property has full legal authority to gift or alienate that share to anyone without requiring the consent of a co-owner, as such property does not partake the character of coparcenary property. Partially granting relief to an appellant seeking declaration of property title, the apex court clarified that while the gift deed remains valid for the donor’s undivided half share, the recipient must seek partition by metes and bounds in separate proceedings to claim actual possession.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from Original Suit No. 697 of 1996, filed by the plaintiff, Maragadham, before the District Munsiff at Tirupattur. She sought a declaration of title, recovery of possession, and consequential reliefs regarding lands located in Mallapalli Village, Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District.
Maragadham claimed absolute ownership over the suit properties based on a registered gift settlement deed dated December 3, 1990, executed in her favour by her grandfather, Kuttiyappa Goundar (Defendant No. 1). She alleged that after being put in possession, she was divested of the property in 1995 by Kuttiyappa Goundar, along with Periyaraja (Defendant No. 2), Muniammal (Defendant No. 3), and Vijayakumar (Defendant No. 4), who then inducted Nandimalai (Defendant No. 5) to cultivate the lands.
The suit was contested by Defendant Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Defendant No. 3, Muniammal, was the daughter of Kuttiyappa Goundar through his first wife, also named Muniyammal. She argued that the suit properties originally belonged to her deceased mother by virtue of a 1949 sale deed and a 1949 gift settlement deed executed by her mother’s father, Ammakara Goundar. Muniammal contended that upon her mother’s intestate death, the property came into her possession and enjoyment, and that her father, Kuttiyappa Goundar, had no right to gift the entire property to the plaintiff.
Decisions of Lower Courts
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff on April 13, 2006, holding that the properties devolved exclusively upon Kuttiyappa Goundar after his wife’s death, giving him absolute rights to gift them.
However, the First Appellate Court (Sub Judge, Tirupattur) reversed this decree on April 16, 2007, in AS No. 77 of 2006. It held that upon his wife’s death, the properties devolved equally upon Kuttiyappa Goundar and his daughter, Muniammal, in equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Since Kuttiyappa Goundar only held an undivided half share, the appellate court ruled that he had no right to gift the entire property, making the gift deed void.
On June 9, 2015, the Madras High Court dismissed the Second Appeal (SA No. 1393 of 2007) filed by the plaintiff. The High Court concurred that the father and daughter jointly succeeded to the property under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and further held that Kuttiyappa Goundar could not have gifted even his own half share without obtaining the consent of co-sharer Muniammal.
Arguments & Supreme Court’s Analysis
Examining the legal position, the Supreme Court noted that the suit properties originally belonged to Kuttiyappa Goundar’s first wife, Muniyammal, who died intestate after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. Under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act of 1956, her property devolved equally upon her husband (Kuttiyappa Goundar) and her only daughter (Muniammal).
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in requiring the consent of the co-sharer for gifting the undivided half share. The Bench observed:
“Be it noted that this undivided half share in the hands of Kuttiyappa Goundar did not partake the character of ‘coparcenary property’ and belonged to him absolutely. He, therefore, had every right in law to gift or alienate the same to anyone, including a total stranger.”
The Court further stated:
“There was no need for him to take the consent of the co-owner, Muniammal, before parting with his undivided half share in the suit properties. The issue of such consent being obtained may have arisen had the property been coparcenary property, but not when the undivided half share was the absolute property of Kuttiyappa Goundar.”
Addressing whether relief could be granted under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)—which empowers courts to grant a smaller relief than requested—the apex court noted that the plaintiff had claimed full ownership and recovery of possession over the entire property. The Bench observed:
“However, such discretion would not be available when a plaintiff sets up an altogether different case from the one ultimately found established on facts and in law by the Court.”
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of title only in respect of an undivided half share in the suit properties under the registered gift deed dated December 3, 1990. However, because the properties remained joint and unpartitioned by metes and bounds, the Court held that the relief of recovery of possession cannot be granted in the present suit.
Leaving it open for the plaintiff to initiate appropriate partition proceedings before a competent forum to crystallise her rights, the Supreme Court requested the jurisdictional court to decide any such partition suit as expeditiously as possible. The appeal was accordingly allowed in part, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts to the extent they held otherwise, with parties directed to bear their own costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Maragadham v. Periyaraja and others
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 12190 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Date: July 29, 2026
