The Supreme Court has held that a co-owner is legally entitled to gift or otherwise transfer his undivided share in jointly owned property without obtaining the consent of the other co-owner. However, the Court also ruled that the recipient of such a gift cannot claim exclusive possession of the property unless it is first partitioned by metes and bounds.

The bench Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva has observed that although courts may grant a lesser relief than what is claimed under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such discretion cannot be exercised where the plaintiff’s established legal rights are fundamentally different from the case pleaded in the suit. Therefore, the Court declined to grant the relief of partition in the present proceedings because no such relief had been sought in the plaint.

The dispute arose from a gift settlement deed executed on 13 December 1990 by Kuttiyappa Goundar in favour of his granddaughter, Maragadham. She claimed that the gift conveyed ownership of several parcels of land situated in Mallapalli Village, Tirupattur Taluk, Vellore District, and that she had been placed in possession of the property. According to her, she was subsequently dispossessed by the defendants in 1995, prompting her to institute a civil suit seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and consequential reliefs.

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026

The defendants contested the suit by asserting that the properties originally belonged to Muniyammal, the first wife of Kuttiyappa Goundar, who had acquired them under sale and gift deeds executed by her father in 1949. They contended that after Muniyammal’s death, the property devolved equally upon her husband, Kuttiyappa Goundar, and their daughter, Muniammal, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Consequently, they argued that Kuttiyappa Goundar was not competent to gift the entire property to his granddaughter.

The Trial Court accepted the plaintiff’s claim and held that after the death of his wife, Kuttiyappa Goundar became the exclusive owner of the properties and therefore possessed full authority to execute the gift deed in favour of his granddaughter. On this basis, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

The First Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, holding that the property had devolved equally upon the husband and daughter of the deceased owner under the Hindu Succession Act. Since Kuttiyappa Goundar owned only an undivided half share, he could not validly gift the entire property. The appellate court further concluded that the recital regarding delivery of possession under the gift deed had not been proved and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit, while leaving it open for Kuttiyappa Goundar to assert his half share separately.

The Madras High Court affirmed this reasoning, holding that the grandfather could not even transfer his undivided share without the consent of the other co-owner and dismissed the second appeal.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s view regarding the necessity of obtaining consent from a co-owner.

The Bench observed that upon the death of Muniyammal, her husband and daughter inherited the property in equal shares under Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act. The Court emphasized that the husband’s undivided half share became his absolute property and did not assume the character of coparcenary property.

Accordingly, the Court held that an owner of such an undivided share is free to transfer or gift it to any person, including a complete stranger, without requiring the concurrence or consent of the other co-owner.

While recognising the validity of the gift to the extent of the donor’s half share, the Supreme Court clarified that the plaintiff could not seek recovery of exclusive possession because the property continued to remain undivided.

The Court observed that the plaintiff’s suit was founded on the assertion that she had become the absolute owner of the entire property and had already been placed in possession. Both assertions were found to be legally unsustainable. Since the gifted interest represented only an undivided half share, no exclusive possessory rights could arise until the property was partitioned by metes and bounds.

The Supreme Court declared that the plaintiff is entitled to recognition of title under the registered gift deed only to the extent of the donor’s undivided half share. It granted liberty to institute appropriate partition proceedings so that her undivided interest may be separated and crystallised into exclusive ownership after partition by metes and bounds.

The Court also requested the jurisdictional court to dispose of any such partition suit expeditiously, noting that the plaintiff’s entitlement to the undivided half share already stood determined by the judgment. The appeal was accordingly allowed in part, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside to the extent they held otherwise. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Elevators Are ‘Common Carriers’, Manufacturers Owe Heightened Duty of Care: Supreme Court