Supreme Court Recognises Partition via Settlement or Oral Agreement

Supreme Court Recognises Partition via Settlement or Oral Agreement

The Supreme Court has noted that a partition can also be accomplished through a settlement or verbal agreement. The Court emphasized that there is no restriction on executing a partition without a written instrument, as long as all legal requirements are adhered to. Justices Bela Trivedi and S.V. Bhatti constituted the Bench that made this assertion.

In this particular legal case, the plaintiff, who is a woman, initiated a lawsuit seeking a declaration that she holds the status of a coparcener under the amended Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Additionally, she requested the court to decree a partition and grant her separate possession of a one-third share as delineated in the schedule of the complaint.

The Trial Court rejected the suit, and subsequently, the Madras High Court upheld the dismissal on the grounds that the property was not subject to partition at the time when Section 29A came into effect.

Before the Supreme Court, the central questions at hand revolved around whether the assets outlined in the plaintiff’s complaint schedule possessed the attributes of coparcenary status as of March 25, 1989, and were consequently eligible for division through partition.

In this context, the Bench noted its awareness of the principle that partition can be undertaken without solely relying on a written instrument, as long as all legal requisites are met. Stated differently, the division can also be accomplished through an arrangement or verbal agreement.

The Bench remarked that the plaintiff's acquisition of coparcenary status alone could not automatically warrant the approval of the partition request. For the plea to partition to be granted, the plaintiff had to prove that the partial partition didn't diminish her coparcenary rights. The Court, in dismissing the current lawsuit, ultimately determined that the plaintiff had not adequately established that the property mentioned in the complaint schedule maintained its coparcenary nature, thereby remaining eligible for division.