Coparcener's Release Deed Immediately Divests Rights In Joint Family Property; Unregistered Family Settlement Admissible To Prove Severance: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 6) observed that a registered relinquishment deed releasing share of a coparcener in the joint family property, operates immediately regardless of its implementation.

“A release by a coparcener for consideration operates immediately to divest his subsisting coparcenary interest; it does not depend for its efficacy on any further act of implementation.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria set aside the concurrent findings of the Karnataka High Court and trial court, which refused to consider the Appellant's exclusive share in the suit property, despite there being a registered relinquishment deeds by Appellant's two brothers releasing their respective shares in Appellant's favor, and a subsequent family settlement (palupatti) in 1972, which formally recorded the separation of the remaining coparceners and delineated their respective shares, which had been independently managed ever since.

Both the Trial Court and the High Court rejected these defences, treating all the properties as joint family assets and ordering partition among all heirs. Challenging this, the Appellant's legal representatives appealed to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned decisions, the judgment authored by Justice Nath observed that the legal weight of the registered relinquishment deeds cannot be ignored, and the relinquishment deed doesn't need to be acted upon to validate its operation.

"The Trial Court declined to give effect to [the release deed] on two grounds: first, that the deed was not mentioned in the later palupatti; and second, that it was not shown to have been 'acted upon.' In our considered opinion, both reasons are misconceived," the court observed.

Further, on the issue of the unregistered family settlement, the Court reaffirmed that such documents are admissible for collateral purposes, even if they cannot be used to convey title. The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that an unregistered family settlement can't be relied upon to prove severance of status, and clarified that an unregistered family arrangement can validly prove, firstly, the severance of the joint family status; and secondly, the nature of subsequent possession and enjoyment by the family members.

“Under Hindu law, severance of joint status can be brought about by an unequivocal declaration reduced to writing or otherwise, and a writing evidencing such disruption is admissible to prove the fact of disruption, the arrangement, and the character of subsequent possession.”, the court observed.

“a family arrangement recorded in writing, when relied upon only to explain how the parties thereafter held and enjoyed the properties, does not require registration for that limited collateral use.”, the court added.

The bench further distinguished between “severance of status” and “division by metes and bounds”, emphasizing that the former can occur merely through a clear declaration of intent to separate, even without a physical division of property.

“The approach of the Trial Court and the High Court does not withstand scrutiny. The Trial Court declined to act on Ex.D-17 on the footing that it was unregistered and not acted upon and it read the mutation entry as if it were based on inheritance or consent rather than on the palupatti. That approach is erroneous. The writing was expressly marked for collateral purposes and registration was not a bar on that plane. The insistence on division by metes and bounds ignored the undisputed position that the allotted lands are in different villages with no overlap of survey numbers and it overlooked the longstanding separate possession reflected in the revenue records.”, the court observed.

The appeal was accordingly allowed, with a direction to the trial court to draw up the final decree by metes and bounds in conformity with this judgment.

“It shall demarcate the shares over Schedule A and items 1 to 16 of Schedule C and shall separately give effect to the equal moieties of defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6 in Schedule B and item 17 of Schedule C. Any pendente lite alienations touching Schedule B or item 17 of Schedule C shall abide these declarations and be considered, if required, in the final decree proceedings without disturbing the equal halves.”, the court ordered.

Cause Title: P. ANJANAPPA (D) BY LRs VERSUS A.P. NANJUNDAPPA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1074

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. G L Vishwanath, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Ms. Nayana Tara B G, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Radhakrishna S Hegde, Adv. Mr. Prakash Chandra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR Mr. Shekhar Devasa, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. Muthanna, Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. M/S. Devasa & Co., AOR