The Madras High Court on September 10, 2026 allowed the brother's second appeal and set aside earlier decrees granting the two sisters a one-third share each in properties left by their mother, Sundarathachi, who died in 1991 without a Will. According to reports from Business Standard and The Times of India, the ruling was based on the facts and evidence of this particular dispute, with legal experts emphasizing it does not dilute the statutory inheritance rights of daughters. The case involved properties linked to the siblings' parents and raised questions around co-ownership, ouster, an unproved Will and failure to include necessary parties in a partition suit. The mother owned 12 properties, while the father held 26 properties in his name, making the estate significantly larger than initially reported.
The sisters, Andal and Ambika, claimed a one-third share each in properties left by their mother, Sundarathachi. As reported by Business Standard, the court examined an earlier 1953 Will made by their maternal grandmother, Subbammal, which clearly intended the properties to pass to Sundarathachi's children, whether male or female. The court therefore held that the sisters were co-owners and that their right to claim a share was preserved. However, the court then considered the brother's plea that the sisters had been ousted from the properties. According to The Times of India, the court examined the sisters' rights in light of the grandmother's intention that all her daughter's children, whether male or female, were entitled to the properties.
According to The Times of India, the court relied heavily on the evidence given by the elder sister, who said she had lived away after her marriage in 1971 and had not participated in the joint enjoyment of the properties or received income from them. The court also noted that the sisters did not seek partition until 2009, almost two decades after their mother's death. Legal experts emphasize that ouster among co-owners requires more than mere exclusive possession, with courts examining the entire course of conduct, including pleadings, admissions and surrounding circumstances. The Madras High Court observed that on the death of Sundarathachi on May 21, 1991, succession opened either intestate or by testament (Will) but the sisters did not choose to claim share in the property till the end of 2009. The court inferred that the sisters had remained away from the properties for approximately four decades.
As reported by Business Standard, the sisters produced documents such as chitta and adangal records but the court found that these records were in the name of their deceased mother even years after her death and therefore did not establish the sisters' joint possession. Legal experts warn that heirs should not assume that ownership rights are adequately protected merely because their names appear in family documents. The court also found that the sisters had not included the father's children who stood to receive property under the Will as necessary parties, which weakened their partition claim concerning those properties. According to The Times of India, the Madras High Court noted that there are some factual incorrectness in the plaint regarding the properties available for partition and that the sisters might have been ousted from the properties. The father subsequently made a Will in 2005, leaving some properties to his daughters and others to his son's children, but the court found that the Will had not been properly proved because neither attesting witness testified to seeing him sign it.
According to legal experts cited by Business Standard and The Times of India, the judgement highlights three practical lessons for property heirs: do not delay asserting inheritance rights, keep property records updated, and ensure proper execution and proof of Wills. The case demonstrates that possession by one co-heir is ordinarily presumed to be for the benefit of all co-heirs, and to establish ouster, the possessing co-owner must show an open, hostile and exclusive assertion of title brought to the other heir's knowledge. The ruling emphasizes that valid claims can still fail if evidence does not support them or procedural requirements are not met. In this case, the Madras High Court found that both the attesting witnesses to the Will had not deposed about witnessing Murugaiah (father) signing the Will, which meant the court could not properly validate it years later. The court also held that the sisters' partition suit concerning the father's properties was 'primarily bad for not impleading of the proper and necessary parties'.
