Sisters sought share in parents’ properties under Hindu Succession law; Madras HC rules for brother over mother’s land on ouster, father’s estate over missing parties

Madras High Court did not deny the sisters’ status as legal co-owners of their mother’s properties. (Image for representative purpose only)

Making a Will properly to ensure that all the required legal formalities are followed can help prevent disputes over inheritance among your children. A recent judgment of the Madras High Court highlights this very point: mistakes in executing a Will can result in lengthy litigation between siblings over their parents’ properties.In this case, the parents of two daughters and a son owned several properties. The daughters got married and moved to their husbands’ homes. On September 10, 2026, the Madras High Court dismissed the sisters’ appeal, allowing their brother to retain the land.Also Read | Man had Rs 2 crore bank deposit and didn’t file ITR, faced Rs 2.51 crore tax addition; ITAT Chennai quashes reassessment after Income Tax Department missed 6-year deadline by 5 days

What the case is about

The mother owned 12 properties, while the father held 26 properties in his name. She died in 1991 without executing a Will. The father subsequently made a Will in 2005, leaving some properties to his daughters and others to his son’s children. However, a mistake in the process later became a critical issue in court, preventing the Will from being established as legally valid.The problem was that the father had prepared and signed the Will before taking it to a witness to obtain the witness’s signature. When questioned in court years later about whether he had seen the father sign the document, the witness stated that the Will had already been signed when it was brought to him.After the father died in 2009, the siblings began disputing how their parents’ properties should be divided. The brother refused to allot any share of the estate to his sisters.Unable to resolve the matter with their brother, both sisters approached the court, claiming one-third of the properties each under Hindu succession law.Also Read | US-based daughter files case against parents seeking share in properties; Karnataka HC rejects her ‘ancestral’ claim, saying they were father’s separate assets, not coparcenary property

Why did the sisters lose their property claim to their brother?

One of the main reasons for the outcome was the High Court’s finding on ouster. Their brother had continued to exercise exclusive control over the land, and the sisters knew about this arrangement. Despite their mother’s death in 1991, they did not seek partition until the end of 2009, nearly 18 years later.Shrusti Shah, Associate Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, told ET that the Madras High Court did not deny the sisters’ status as legal co-owners of their mother’s properties. The Madras High Court examined the sisters’ rights in their mother’s properties in light of a Will executed by their maternal grandmother in 1953.Through that Will, the grandmother had said that the properties belonging to her daughter would pass on to her grandchildren, which would include any children born to her daughter after the grandmother’s death.After reviewing the document, the High Court found that the grandmother’s intention was clear: all her daughter’s children, whether male or female, were entitled to the properties.The sisters ultimately lost because the court concluded that they had been ‘ousted’ from the properties.Shah explained: “Ordinarily, one co-owner’s possession is treated as possession on behalf of all, so even decades of sole management does not by itself extinguish the others’ rights.”Ouster is an exception to this general principle. It arises when one co-owner exercises exclusive control over a property in a manner that is hostile to the rights of the other co-owners, according to the ET report.Also Read | Grandmother and her son gifted 2.5-acre land to his second wife, who sold it; his daughter from first marriage claimed it was ancestral, but Madras HC rejects her pleaThis involves circumstances in which the other owners know, or ought to know, about the exclusive possession but remain inactive and do not assert their rights, such as by seeking a share of the property’s income.For instance, if A and B jointly own a plot of land, but A alone cultivates it, maintains it and retains all the income, B’s continued silence despite knowing, or being expected to know, about this arrangement could become relevant when determining whether an ouster has occurred.Shah said courts generally do not conclude that ouster has taken place merely because a long period has elapsed. The claim must be specifically raised through pleadings and supported by evidence. According to her, these requirements were central to the outcome of this case.The brother argued that the sisters had neither jointly possessed nor enjoyed the properties with him and had been aware for years that they were excluded from their use and enjoyment.One of the sisters admitted that she had married in 1971 and subsequently lived with her husband elsewhere. She also acknowledged that she had never received any share of the income generated by the properties. She could not produce documents establishing that she had jointly enjoyed or used the properties and had not even attended her father’s funeral.The Madras High Court inferred that the sisters had remained away from the properties for approximately four decades. It therefore rejected their attempt to claim a share, leading to their defeat in the case.The High Court noted that succession to the mother’s estate opened when she died on May 21, 1991, whether under the rules applicable to intestate succession or through a Will. Nevertheless, the sisters waited until the end of 2009 to pursue their claims for a share in the properties.The court also reiterated the established legal position that merely possessing jointly owned land for an extended period does not give one co-owner exclusive ownership. Such possession must be adverse to the rights of the other co-owners for it to have that effect.In support of this principle, the High Court cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Maharajadhiraj of Burdwan, Udaychand Mahatab Chand v. Subodh Gopal and Others, reported in AIR 1971 SC 376.The court therefore emphasised that a claim of ouster must be assessed through the pleadings and evidence presented in the case. The passage of time alone, or the fact that some co-owners have remained away from the property, is not sufficient to establish that they have lost their rights.“The plaintiffs have lost their right to claim share in the ‘A’ schedule properties in view of ouster, though the intention of the testatrix was to give her properties to all her grandchildren born through her daughter,” the court ruled.After considering the pleadings, the evidence and the first sister’s own admissions together, the Madras High Court concluded that the sisters had been ousted from asserting a claim to their mother’s properties.As for their father’s properties, the court found that his 2005 Will had not been properly proved because neither attesting witness testified to seeing him sign it.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”.One factor that went against the sisters was their failure to include their brother’s children as parties to the proceedings. They were aware that their father’s 2005 Will had bequeathed certain properties to his grandchildren and that he had also sold one of the properties, yet the children were not made parties to the case.Shah said the broader lesson for families is that having a legal right to property on paper may not be sufficient if the heirs fail to assert that right. In this case, the sisters remained silent while her brother managed the properties and collected the income from them, a factor that worked against the claim.Also Read | Retired bank employee got Rs 12.27 lakh leave encashment and claimed Rs 3 lakh exemption in 2020, but government later hiked limit to Rs 25 lakh in 2023; ITAT Chennai allows full tax exemption