Co-Owner Cannot Claim Adverse Possession Without Ouster Proof: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has affirmed that a co-owner in exclusive possession of inherited property cannot claim adverse possession or ouster against other legal heirs merely based on revenue record mutations and payment of property taxes. Rejecting an appeal by a brother seeking to deny his sisters their rightful shares, the Court held that possession by one co-owner is legally deemed to be on behalf of all co-owners unless clear, hostile ouster is established.

In an appeal against a preliminary partition decree, a Single Bench of Justice P. Vadamalai considered whether long-term physical possession by a male heir extinguishes the partition rights of married female co-heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Court's Reasoning on Co-Ownership and Ouster

The High Court carefully evaluated the evidence and noted that the appellant failed to prove any formal partition or relinquishment of rights by his sisters. The Court emphasized that mere payment of municipal taxes or mutation of names in revenue registers, done without notice to other co-sharers, cannot support a plea of adverse possession.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is also a settled position that a co-owner cannot claim adverse possession against another co-owner. The 1st defendant admitted in his evidence that the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4 are also co-owners of the suit property. The 1st defendant has not proved his exclusive possession beyond the statutory period by producing acceptable materials and he has also not proved the plea of ouster against the plaintiff and other sisters."

The Court had the following directions:

"In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 29.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam are confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed."

Background

The dispute concerned properties originally owned by the grandfather of the parties, who executed a gift settlement deed in 1952 in favour of his son Purushothaman. Following Purushothaman's death intestate in May 2001 and his wife's death in 2010, one of his daughters filed a suit in 2017 under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking a 1/5th share in the remaining properties.

The appellant (1st defendant/brother) resisted the partition suit, asserting that he had been in exclusive possession for over 30 years, had reconstructed damaged commercial shops, and had mutated revenue records into his name. He argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 65 and Article 110 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He also relied on precedents such as Puniyavathi and Anr. v. Pachaiammal and Others ( "2022 -1 Law Weekly 902": 2022 CaseBase(MAD) 910) and Ramathal v. Chinnasamy Gounder & Others, which applied Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to infer ouster where registered family partitions went unchallenged for decades.

Rejecting the appellant's contentions, the High Court distinguished Puniyavathi and Anr. v. Pachaiammal and Others ( "2022 -1 Law Weekly 902": 2022 CaseBase(MAD) 910), Ramathal v. Chinnasamy Gounder & Others, and Janardhan Prasad vs Ramdas ( "2007 (3) MLJ 721": 2007 CaseBase(SC) 758), noting that those rulings involved prior formal or oral partitions among male members. Applying the principles laid down in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. ( "2025 INSC 532": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 502) regarding self-acquired property, the Court confirmed that the property was Purushothaman's separate property. Further, citing Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma ( "(2020) SCC Online SC 641": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1056) regarding coparcenary rights and Section 8 and Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Court held that all legal heirs inherited equal 1/5th shares upon the intestate owner's death.

Finding that the appellant had produced fraudulent legal heir certificates omitting his sisters and constructed new shops after the suit was instituted in 2017, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's partition decree.

Case Details:
Case No.: A.S(MD)No.356 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.17763 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:3518
Case Title: Jayakumar v. Jeeva and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Velrajan for Mr.S.Vanchinathan
For the Respondent(s): Mr.A.R.Hariprasaadh for Mr.B.Anandan (for R1 & R3)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 18211