In a significant judgment that clarifies the legal standing of voluntary family arrangements, the Kerala High Court has ruled that such settlements operate on a different legal plane than inheritance governed strictly by customary law. The court held that a female heir, who had no right to inherit under the pre-1956 Hindu legal framework, can still acquire a valid title to property if a share is consciously and voluntarily given to her through a registered partition deed executed by the family.
The Case and Its Historical Background
The ruling came from a single-judge bench of Justice Easwaran S, who was hearing a second appeal concerning the partition of a family property in Kozhikode district. The property in question was originally acquired in 1916 as the self-acquired asset of two male members of the family.
Following several deaths in the family, the legal heirs came together and executed a registered partition deed on August 11, 1958. Under the terms of this deed, a daughter named Unniatha was allotted a specific share in the property. Later, in 1978, she assigned her share to the plaintiffs in the case.
Legal Battle Over Validity of the Deed
When the plaintiffs sought the partition of the property based on their acquired rights, the trial court ruled in their favor. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court's reasoning was rooted in traditional Mitakshara law, stating that since the female heir had no antecedent title or inheritance rights before the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, her inclusion in the partition deed could not confer any valid rights upon her.
The appellants argued that the 1958 partition deed represented a conscious and voluntary family arrangement. They contended that once the execution and terms of such a deed are admitted by the parties, they cannot later deny the rights that flow from it. They emphasized that the lack of inheritance rights under the old law does not invalidate a voluntary conferment of property.
The respondents, however, stuck to the position that since the succession to the property opened before 1956, the female heir was ineligible to inherit. They argued that a partition deed cannot create rights where no antecedent title existed.
Court's Observations and Final Ruling
Justice Easwaran S's bench made several crucial observations. The court emphasized that the property was self-acquired and not ancestral, meaning the strict rules of coparcenary and survivorship under Mitakshara law could not be applied mechanically to this case.
The bench ruled that a voluntary partition or family arrangement stands on a distinct legal footing separate from inheritance governed by customary law. It stated that nothing prevents family members from executing a partition deed that consciously confers a share on a female heir, regardless of her inheritance rights prior to 1956.
The court held that such a registered partition deed cannot be ignored merely because the woman lacked an antecedent right of inheritance, especially when the document clearly reflects the family's intent to grant her rights. The bench also noted that the execution of the 1958 deed was admitted by the defendants, and the concerned male heir had raised no objections during his lifetime, demonstrating acceptance of the allotment.
Allowing the appeal, the Kerala High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment and restored the trial court's decree granting partition. This judgment reinforces the validity of family-driven settlements and provides a significant precedent for property rights, particularly for women who were excluded under older personal laws.
