Grandmother gifted 2.5-acre land to son’s second wife, who sold it; granddaughter challenges sale claiming it to be ancestral land, but loses case in the High Court for this reason

Where land is concerned, every owner worries that if future generations are not responsible, they might lose it or have it taken away. Mr Arunachala Chetty had this concern as he owned 2.5 acres of land in A.K.Mottur Village, Tirupattur Taluk, and his son was not dependable. So, on November 10, 1953, he executed a Will leaving the land to his wife (Smt Unnamalaiammal), with a life interest. However, there was a condition, she couldn’t sell or give away the land, as it was meant to eventually go to his son Veerappan.

The only reason Arunachala Chetty did not give this land to Veerappan directly at that time was because Veerappan was young and lacked a sense of responsibility. As Veerapppan grew up and became an adult, he married twice and had five children.

But when it came to decide who would own this 2.5-acre land, Veerappan and his mother (Smt Unnamalaiammal) together signed a gift settlement deed on February 26, 1975, and gave the entire land to Smt Ganga (Veerappan’s second wife).


Even though Veerappan and his mother gave the land to Ganga, Veerappan continued to live there and had possession of it till he died in 1986.

Ten years after Veerappan died, Ganga sold the 2.5-acre land to an outsider in 1996. This angered Kalaiselvi, Veerappan’s daughter from the first wife. Kalaiselvi demanded her share in this land as she thought that her step mother (Ganga) had no right to sell the land since it was ancestral land.

Also read: Can a married daughter inherit government-allotted land? HC protects her rights under the Hindu Succession Act

Thus Kalaiselvi, Veerappan’s daughter from his first wife, filed a court case on the ground that his father owned 2.5 acres of ancestral land which her stepmother illegally sold. After a long courtroom fight, Kalaiselvi lost the case in the Madras High Court on September 8, 2026. The court ruled that this was not ancestral land but was rather a self-acquired property. So, under Hindu law, Veerappan and his mother could legally sign the gift settlement deed giving the land to Gangam who in turn sold it. The court said Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies in this case.

Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies when a Hindu woman is given a property with a right or claim for maintenance. The law then recognises her as owner of this property. Section 14(2) applies when a Hindu individual becomes owner of a property by virtue of gift deed, Will, etc and this property comes to the individual without any attached maintenance or other conditions.

Coming back to the case, the Madras HC held that Section 14(2) applied in this case because Unnamalaiammal's (Veerpan’s mother’s) life interest under Arunachala’s Will was not given in lieu of maintenance since the Will made separate maintenance provisions for her. Therefore, her life interest did not become an absolute estate under Section 14(1).

For easy reference here is the family tree:

Source: Madras High Court judgement

Why the granddaughter (Veerappa's daughter from his first wife) lost the 2.5 acres and Ganga (the second wife, her step-mother) won?

Adnan Siddiqui, Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, said to ET Wealth Online that this case turned on three findings, each of which went against the granddaughter. First, the high court held the land was the self-acquired property of Arunachala Chetty, not ancestral, because both the grandaughter and Ganga said so in their own evidence.

A man can freely will away self-acquired property, and the court read his Will as giving it to his son Veerappa absolutely, in his individual capacity. Second, although the Will gave Veerappa's mother, Unnamalaiammal, only a life interest without power of sale, the court held that she and Veerappa, as life-estate holder and remainderman, could together transfer the property when no one else held an interest. That is what they did in the 1975 settlement deed in Ganga's favour.

Third, the granddaughter admitted the deed was executed, and there was nothing on record to show that Veerappa challenged it in the eleven years he lived afterwards. His widow and daughter claim only through him, so they were in no position to attack what he had done.

The court also found Ganga's marriage to Veerappa proved, though it expressly left its legal validity open. Ganga then sold the land to Subburu in 1996, and that sale was also upheld. So Siddiqui says that the land is with Subburu today, and it is the title of Ganga and her buyer that the Madras High Court has protected.

Also read: Mother wins property battle against son and daughter-in-law: Delhi HC orders them to vacate her house

Madras High Court ruling

Arunachala’s primary intention was to protect the properties and safely hand them over to his son, Veerappan

The Madras High Court read Veerappan’s Will and saw that he had kept adequate jewellery, gold, cash and other assets for maintenance of his wife (Smt Unnamalaiammal) and also gave some of his other properties to his other children but the main 2.5 acre land was reserved for Veerappan.

The Madras High Court thus said the fact that Arunachala’s intention was to eventually hand over his self-acquired properties including the 2.5 acre land in favour of his son - Veerappan, is absolutely clear.

For this reason, the Madras High Court said that Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is applicable in this case and not Section 14 (1).

This is not ancestral property but self-acquired property

The Madras High Court cited a Supreme Court judgement in the case of C.N.Arunachala Mudaliar -vs- C.A.Muruganatha Mudaliar reported in AIR 1953 SC 495 where the court had held that the nature of property depends on the intention of the person creating the Will. This means that if the property is given for the beneficiary’s absolute enjoyment, it would mean a separate property (self-acquired). But if the intention is to partition the property or leave the property for the benefit of not just the beneficiary but his legal heirs also, then the property is joint family ancestral property.

Thus the Madras High Court ruled that this 2.5 acre land is a separate property (self-acquired) of Veerappan since his father’s Will (Arunachala) intended that the properties would ultimately go to Veerappan.

Thus once it is proved that the 2.5 acre land is a separate property of Veerappan, the high court said that the life estate holder (Smt Unnamalaiammal) and the remainderman / vested remainder holder (Veerappan), in the absence of any other interest / right holders, can together alienate the property covered under Will which they did by signing the gift settlement deed with Ganga.

The Madras High Court said that this settled legal principle could be derived from the doctrine of estoppel and doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

So the high court ruled that the gift settlement deed executed by Smt Unnamalaiammal (mother) and Veerappan (son) does not go against the wishes of Arunachala (father).

Since the gift settlement deed was found valid by the Madras High Court, the subsequently executed sale deed by Ganga for the 2.5 acre land also became valid thus Ganga won the case.