Court upholds one-third share of plaintiff in ancestral property, dismisses appellant's claim of oral relinquishment based solely on affidavit for deletion from revenue records
In a significant judgment delivered on August 20, 2026, the Bombay High Court in the case of Shekhar Shankar Joshi v. Anita Arun Bhave clarified the legal position on oral relinquishment of shares in ancestral property by Hindu coparceners. The Court held that oral relinquishment of a share in ancestral property by a coparcener is permissible even without a written instrument or registration, provided the intention to relinquish is clearly established. However, mere execution of a document such as an affidavit for deletion of name from revenue records, which does not explicitly refer to relinquishment, cannot be construed as oral relinquishment.
The dispute arose between siblings Anita Arun Bhave (plaintiff) and Shekhar Shankar Joshi (defendant) concerning their respective shares in ancestral properties, namely land bearing Gat No.27 and a house constructed thereon. The properties originally belonged to their grandfather, Narayan Vinayak Joshi, and subsequently passed down to his sons and grandchildren.
The plaintiff claimed a half share in the suit properties and challenged the validity of a Relinquishment Deed dated March 25, 2013, executed by their mother Shakuntala in favor of the defendant, which the defendant relied upon to claim a larger share. The trial court had declared the plaintiff’s right to half the property and invalidated the relinquishment deed citing fraud, whereas the appellate court reversed that finding, holding the deed valid and adjusting the shares to one-third for the plaintiff and two-thirds for the defendant.
The defendant further claimed that the plaintiff had orally relinquished her share in the ancestral property, supported by an affidavit executed in 1991 for deletion of her name from revenue records. The courts below rejected this claim, holding that oral relinquishment requires clear evidence of intention and cannot be presumed from a document silent on relinquishment.
The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that while oral relinquishment in joint family properties is legally permissible without writing or registration (citing precedents including Ramdas Chimna v. Pralhad Deorao and Uma Madhav Agaskar v. Manorama Motiram Dandekar), the party asserting such relinquishment bears the burden of proof. In this case, the defendant failed to produce any credible evidence of oral relinquishment beyond vague pleadings and the affidavit, which did not mention relinquishment.
Moreover, the Court clarified that consenting to the allotment of a share in ancestral property to another coparcener, particularly one from a different family unit, does not ipso facto amount to relinquishment of one’s own share. The plaintiff had expressly consented to the partition concerning land at Gat No.28 but never relinquished her rights in Gat No.27.
The Court thereby dismissed the defendant’s second appeal, confirming the plaintiff’s entitlement to one-third share and the defendant’s two-thirds share in the suit properties, as held by the appellate court. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
This judgment provides important clarity on the law governing oral relinquishment of ancestral property shares among Hindu coparceners, emphasizing the necessity of clear intent and evidence, and cautioning against presuming relinquishment from documents executed for administrative purposes.
Detailed Legal Context and Implications:
1. Oral Relinquishment Validity:
The Court reaffirmed that under Hindu law relating to coparcenary property, a coparcener can relinquish his or her share orally in ancestral property without the necessity of a written or registered document, as long as the intention to relinquish is clearly established. This principle aligns with the precedent set in Ramdas Chimna v. Pralhad Deorao (AIR 1965 Bom 74), which held that the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act do not mandate written instruments for mere relinquishment (abandonment) of interest in joint family property.
2. Distinction from Self-Acquired Property:
The Court distinguished between ancestral joint family property and self-acquired property inherited through intestate succession, noting that relinquishment concerning self-acquired property requires compliance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, i.e., a registered document.
3. Burden of Proof on Oral Relinquishment:
While oral relinquishment is legally permissible, the party asserting such relinquishment must prove it with clear and cogent evidence. Mere allegations or vague assertions without supporting testimony or documentary proof are insufficient.
4. Role of Affidavit for Revenue Records:
The affidavit executed by the plaintiff for deletion of her name from revenue records was held insufficient to establish relinquishment. The document did not mention any relinquishment or intention thereof and was primarily for administrative purposes related to mutation of land records.
5. Consent to Partition vs. Relinquishment:
Consent given for allotment of land to another coparcener (especially from a different family unit) does not imply relinquishment of one’s own share. Admission of share by another is a separate issue from abandoning one’s interest.
6. Concurrent Findings of Fact:
The Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts on the facts regarding the absence of oral relinquishment by the plaintiff, emphasizing the importance of maintaining factual findings unless there is a clear error.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court’s decision in this case provides a nuanced and authoritative interpretation of the law on oral relinquishment in Hindu coparcenary property, balancing the recognition of informal family arrangements with the need for clear proof to alter property rights. This judgment will guide litigants and courts in similar disputes, underscoring the critical distinction between intention and mere administrative acts in property claims.
Bottom Line:
Oral relinquishment of share in ancestral property by a coparcener is permissible without a written instrument or registration, provided intention to relinquish is clearly established. Mere execution of a document for deletion of name from revenue records without reference to relinquishment does not amount to oral relinquishment. Additionally, consent for allotment of share to another coparcener does not imply relinquishment of own share.
Statutory provision(s):
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Sections 9, 54, 59, 107, 118, 123, 130), Indian Registration Act, 1908 (Section 17), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XX Rule 12), Evidence Act, 1872
Shekhar Shankar Joshi v. Anita Arun Bhave, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2963988
