The Supreme Court has clarified that a co-owner holding an undivided share in a property has the legal right to gift that share without obtaining the consent of the other co-owner. However, the Court also made it clear that such a gift does not automatically entitle the recipient to exclusive possession unless the property is partitioned.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva partly allowed the appeal filed by Maragadham, modifying the findings of the Madras High Court and the first appellate court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Maragadham in 1996 before the District Munsiff Court, Tirupattur. She sought a declaration of title, recovery of possession, and related reliefs over agricultural land situated in Mallapalli Village, Vellore District.
Maragadham relied on a registered gift settlement deed dated 13 December 1990, executed by her grandfather Kuttiyappa Goundar, claiming that he had gifted the entire suit property to her and handed over possession. She alleged that she was later dispossessed by the defendants.
The defendants contested the claim, arguing that the property originally belonged to Muniyammal, the wife of Kuttiyappa Goundar. After her death, they contended, the property devolved equally upon her husband and daughter under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, they argued that Kuttiyappa Goundar could not validly gift the entire property.
The Trial Court ruled in favour of Maragadham. However, the First Appellate Court reversed that decision, and the Madras High Court later dismissed her second appeal. Both courts held that the gift deed could not operate because the donor owned only half of the property.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court agreed that, following Muniyammal's death, the property devolved equally upon her husband and daughter under Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Consequently, Kuttiyappa Goundar owned only an undivided half share in the property.
However, the Bench disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the appellate courts regarding the validity of the gift.
The Court observed:
“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 Bench explained that Kuttiyappa Goundar's half share was his absolute property and did not retain the character of joint family coparcenary property. Therefore, he was legally free to transfer or gift that undivided share to anyone, even a stranger.
At the same time, the Court pointed out that ownership and possession are separate issues. Since the property had never been partitioned by metes and bounds, Maragadham could not claim exclusive possession of any specific portion merely on the strength of the gift deed.
The Bench further observed:
“She would necessarily have to seek partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds to actually claim her separate half share.”
The Court also held that although courts may grant a lesser relief than what is claimed, they cannot completely rewrite a party's case. Since Maragadham had approached the court claiming ownership of the entire property, the relief of partition could not be granted in the same proceedings because it was outside the scope of her original pleadings.
Court's Decision
Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court declared that Maragadham is entitled to recognition of title only to the undivided half share covered by the registered gift deed executed by Kuttiyappa Goundar.
The Court set aside the findings of the appellate courts to the extent they held that the gift itself was invalid for want of consent from the other co-owner. It left open the remedy for Maragadham to file appropriate partition proceedings before the competent court so that her undivided share may be separated by metes and bounds.
The Court also requested the jurisdictional court to dispose of any such partition suit expeditiously.
The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Maragadham v. Periyaraja and Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 12190 of 2025
Judge: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Decision Date: July 29, 2026
