Mother Can't Relinquish Property Rights Of Minor Children Without Proper Documentation: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that a mother cannot legally relinquish the property rights on behalf of her minor children in light of the amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, 2005 which granted daughters equal rights to sons in ancestral property, strengthening their claim to a share in such properties.

Justice P. Sree Sudha held that the mother's purported relinquishment of her daughters' rights in the ancestral property could not be legally recognized, particularly without proper documentation.

“Even if it is presumed that P.W.2 received Rs.30,000/- and purchased the properties under Exs.B1 and B2, it cannot be said that she received the said amount towards shares of plaintiffs and relinquished their right of partition. She cannot relinquish the right of minors without their consent knowledge.”

The Bench also referred to Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., and Pasagadugula Narayana Rao v Pasagadugula Rama Murthy to hold that no relinquishment can be made orally, and can only be accepted when made by way of a registered instrument.

“Until and unless there is registered relinquishment deed, it cannot be relied upon. In this case, no document was executed at the time of payment of Rs.30,000/- to P.W.2, as such the contention of the defendant that he paid the amount towards share of the plaintiffs cannot be believed and also his arguments that P.W.2 relinquished the share of her minor child is not acceptable..”

The judgment was passed in a second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by a Junior Civil Judge. 

The appellants are the daughters of the respondent herein and had originally filed the suit for partition of their father’s property. It was the case of the appellants that when they were of a really young age, disputes arose between their parents, due to which the appellants along with their mother moved out of their father’s house and moved in with their maternal uncle.

The first appellant is married, and due to a scarcity of funds for the marriage of the second appellant, they approached their father for assistance. When the respondent denied any contribution, the appellants were compelled to file the suit for partition of ancestral property seeking 1/3rd share for each of them.

The claim of the respondent was that he did not want to live separately from the appellants and their mother, and encouraged them many times to return home. However, it was argued that the mother refused to do so due to her stubbornness and continued to live separately. He further contended that a panchayat was also held, and Rs 30,000 was given to the mother of the appellants, in furtherance of which, she relinquished the share of herself and the appellants, who were minors at the time, from the property of the respondent.

The trial court and the first appellate court accepted the defendant's version, interpreting the mother's testimony as an admission of receiving the money and relinquishing the daughters' share in the property. The courts dismissed the suit based on this interpretation.

The Second Appeal contended that both lower courts misinterpreted the evidence of the mother and that she could not legally relinquish the rights of her minor daughters. The appeal also cited amendments to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, which granted daughters equal rights to sons in ancestral property.

The Court observed,

“Both the Courts took a conclusion that the mother of the plaintiffs in her examination admitted to have conducted Panchayat, received Rs.30,000/- and relinquished the share of her daughters. In fact, perusal of Cross-examination clearly shows that there is no such admission and she expressly denied the said fact. Though the Panchayat elder was examined as D.W.2 and he stated regarding receiving of Rs.30,000/- by P.W.2, no document was executed by P.W.2 regarding the same. It cannot be presumed that the said amount was paid regarding the share of properties of the defendant and there is no other evidence to prove the oral relinquishment of the plaintiffs.”

Justice Sree Sudha noted that the parents of the appellants had not legally separated, and neither had the respondent married again, making them sole coparceners as per the amendment to section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. It was held that both daughters were entitled to a 1/3^rd share in the property of the respondent/defendant.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. 

Counsel for appellants: C.H Siddaiah

Counsel for respondent: N. Ashok Kumar

Case Title: T Vijaya vs. Turkapalli Mahhiah

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment