Co-Owner Can Gift His Undivided Share Without Consent of Other Co-Owner; Inherited Undivided Share Under Section 15 Hindu Succession Act Is Absolute Property Not Coparcenary Property: Supreme Court
Case Name: Maragadham v. Periyaraja & Others
Date of Judgment: 29 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 757
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Held: The Supreme Court held that where a Hindu woman dies intestate, her property devolves under Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 upon her husband and daughter in equal shares. The undivided half share inherited by the husband becomes his absolute property and does not assume the character of coparcenary property; therefore, he is legally competent to gift or alienate that share to any person, including a stranger, without obtaining the consent of the other co-owner. However, while Order VII Rule 7 CPC permits grant of a smaller relief than that expressly claimed, it cannot be invoked to grant an altogether different relief founded on a case not pleaded. Thus, the plaintiff could be declared owner of the undivided half share conveyed under the gift deed, but partition by metes and bounds could not be granted in a suit founded on a claim of exclusive ownership and recovery of possession over the entire property.
Summary: The appellant-plaintiff, Maragadham, filed a suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession over several parcels of land on the strength of a registered gift settlement deed executed by Kuttiyappa Goundar. She claimed that he was the absolute owner of the properties and had validly gifted the entirety to her. The contesting defendants asserted that the properties had originally belonged to Muniyammal and that Kuttiyappa Goundar had no exclusive right to convey them.
The Trial Court decreed the suit, treating Kuttiyappa Goundar as the exclusive owner after his wife’s death. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that under the Hindu Succession Act the deceased woman’s property devolved equally upon her husband, Kuttiyappa Goundar, and her daughter, Muniammal. It consequently held that Kuttiyappa had only a half share and treated the gift of the whole property as ineffective. The Madras High Court substantially affirmed that view and further held that Kuttiyappa could not have gifted even his half share without the consent of the co-sharer.
The Supreme Court agreed that the husband and daughter succeeded equally under Section 15(1)(a), but disagreed with the High Court on the legal character of the husband’s share. His undivided half share was absolute property, not coparcenary property. Consequently, he had complete authority to alienate it and did not require Muniammal’s consent. The gift deed was therefore legally effective to the extent of his undivided half share, even though it purported to cover the entire property.
The Court nevertheless refused to grant partition itself. Maragadham had pleaded that she was absolute owner of the entire property and sought recovery of possession on that basis. The case ultimately established only a right to an undivided half share. Since the properties had never been partitioned by metes and bounds, her specific share could not be separately possessed until partition. The Court held that partition was not merely a lesser relief but, in these circumstances, a materially different relief outside the case pleaded, leaving her free to institute appropriate partition proceedings.
Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the courts below insofar as they denied validity to the gift of Kuttiyappa Goundar’s own share. It declared that the appellant is entitled under the registered gift deed to an undivided half share in the suit properties. It did not grant recovery of possession or partition, instead leaving the appellant at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings for partition by metes and bounds and requesting the jurisdictional court to decide such proceedings expeditiously.