Sisters demanded 1/3 share in parents’ lands, citing Hindu Succession Law, but brother won the case in Madras HC; know why

A recent case in the Madras High Court showed how a correct Will could have prevented years of conflict between siblings over their parents’ properties. In this case, the parents owned multiple properties where the children (one boy and two girls) lived. As time passed and the daughters married while the son established his own family, the relationship between him and the sisters became distant.

The mother owned 12 properties and the father owned 26 properties. The mother passed away in 1991 without creating a Will. The father did make a Will in 2005 leaving his properties to his sisters and the brother’s children. However, the father made a serious error when getting the witness to sign the Will, which meant the court could not properly validate it years later. The mistake he made in the Will was witness related. What happened was the father wrote the Will, signed it and then came to the witness' house to get his signature. Years down the line when the court asked the witness if he has actually seen the father sign the Will, the witness said that the Will was already signed when it was brought before him.

After the father’s death in 2009, the brothers and sisters started fighting over how to divide the parents’ properties. The brother refused to share any of the parents’ properties with the sisters.


Both the sisters were unhappy with their brother’s lack of co-operation and took him to court, seeking 1/3rd share each in all of the properties under the Hindu Succession law.

Also read: Son fights for full share in father’s property after stepmother transfers it to daughter, who sells it; SC rejects his claim

On September 10, 2026, the sisters lost the case in the Madras High Court and the brother won the second appeal and could retain all the lands left behind by their parents.

The primary reason the sisters lost the case was because they were ousted from the family since they were married and lived with their husbands. The brother managed the lands exclusively and this fact was known to the sisters. Also, the sisters did not seek partition of the properties until 2009, nearly two decades after their mother's death in 1991.

The Madras High Court considered the long period of exclusive possession by the brother and the sisters' lack of activity to conclude that, in this particular case, the sisters had been ousted from claiming the properties.

Read on if you want to know the detailed reasons why the sisters lost the case.

Also read: 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

Why the sisters lost the case

Shrusti Shah, Associate Partner at King Stubb and Kasiva, said to ET Wealth Online: The Madras High Court did not dispute that the sisters were legal co-owners of their mother's properties and even held that the mother's own Will intended all her grandchildren, including the brother, to share equally. The sisters lost because the Madras High Court held they had been 'ousted'.

Shah says: "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."

For those who don't know, Ouster is the exception. It arises when one co-owner holds the property exclusively and in a manner hostile to the others meaning therby that the persons who knows or should know about the other co-owner's actions chooses to stay passive or take no action like share of the income from the property. For example: A and B both owns a parcel of land but A alone cultivates the land, takes care of it and keeps the income from this land and when all of this is happening, B who should have known about this chooses to stay silent and let it happen.

Shah says that in ouster cases, usually courts will not infer it from the mere passage of time, and it has to be shown through pleadings and proof which is what happened in this case.

Here in this case, the first sister admitted she married in 1971 and lived elsewhere with her husband. She also admitted she never took any share in the income from the properties, and also had no document showing joint enjoyment, and did not even attend her father's funeral. Moreover, the revenue records she relied on were issued in the name of her long-deceased mother and carried little value in court. Her plaint also listed properties that had been sold earlier or belonged to others. Taken together, the Madras High Court inferred that the sisters had stayed away for roughly four decades and could not now claim a share in the property so this is why the sister lost the case.

Shah says that the lesson for families is that a right to property on paper is not enough, and silence can cost you the right itself like in this case the sister stayed silent when her brothers were using the property and took income from it.

Shah says that legal heirs should assert their share in the property promptly after a death of the family's head by sending a written notice, getting revenue records and patta mutated into all the heirs' names, and keep proof of any income received from the said property.

Moreover, families should record a registered partition or family settlement rather than relying on informal understandings. Shah says that anyone filing for partition of the property should first verify the schedule of properties against title documents, because an inaccurate plaint can be used against you.

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

Further details of the family and the lands

Before going into the details of the land, first learn about the family tree. Smt Subbammal was the maternal grandmother of the brothers and sisters.

Smt Subbammal had a daughter, Smt Sundarathachi who married Mr Murugaiah Pillai. During the lifetime of Subbammal (maternal grandmother), Sundarathachi (the mother) had two daughters (Ambika and Andal). In 1953 Subbammal died but she had executed a Will.

Subbammal said in her Will that all the properties which Sundarathachi had will go to her daughters and any other children (male or female) that she has after her (Subbammal’s) death.

After Subbammal’s death, Sundarathachi gave birth to a son (Mr Pandiarajan). However, in 1991 Sundarathachi (the mother) died of natural causes. At that time, she had 12 properties. More importantly, Sundarathachi had left no Will (intestate) and it was unclear who got all those 12 properties. But the brother, Pandiarajan, alone managed these properties since the sisters had married in the 70s and lived with their husbands.

In 2009, Murugaiah Pillai (the father) also died and he also owned 26 properties. Even though Murugaiah had made a Will in 2005, he had made a fatal error with the witness. The law says that a Will has to be signed and attested by two witnesses. But the witness to Murugaiah’s Will told the court that Murugaiah had prepared the Will and signed it and then came to the witness’s house to get his signature. So the witness did not actually see Murugaiah write the Will and sign it. As a result, the Will failed in the court.

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

Madras High Court discussion

Once Sundarathachi (mother) died in 1991, the succession issue opened but was not exercised

The Madras High Court highlighted a crucial issue about Ambika and Andal having a share in the mother’s properties due to their late grandmother’s 1953 Will (Subbammal).

The grandmother (Subbammal) had written in her Will that Sundarathachi’s two daughters and any child afterwards would get the properties.

The grandmother’s Will said this (extract in Tamil)

Source: Madras HC judgement

The Madras High Court analysed Subbammal (grandmother’s) Will and said that all the children of Sundarathachi, whether male or female, will get her property, since it is very clearly spelt out in the 1953 Will.

Therefore, the Madras High Court said that the sisters (Ambika and Andal) are co-owners without any doubt. Hence, their right to claim a share in the properties is preserved.

The brother, however, denied them any share in the properties on the ground that the sisters were not in joint enjoyment of the properties and for many years, had been aware that they had been ousted from enjoying the property.

The Madras High Court observed that on the death of Sundarathachi on May 21, 1991, succession opened either intestate or by testament (Will). However, the sisters did not choose to claim share in the property till the end 2009.

Also read: Ancestral vs self-acquired property: When oral relinquishment is valid under Hindu succession law

Sisters has been ousted from the property

The Madras High Court said that it is a settled principle of law that a co-owner is a co-owner of the lands in question, his possession, however long it might be, unless it is adverse to the other co-owners, cannot confer on him any right. [Reference: Maharajadhiraj of Burdwan, Udaychand Mahatab Chand v. Subodh Gopal and Others reported in AIR 1971 SC 376.]

Therefore, the plea of ouster against the co-owners (sisters) has to be decided on the basis of pleadings and proof and not on length of time.

The Madras High Court said that there are some factual incorrectness in the plaint regarding the properties available for partition which also indicates that the sisters might have been ousted from the properties.

Moreover, the sisters did not implead the brother’s children as parties to this case despite knowing that their father in his 2005 Will gave some of the properties to them and also sold a property.

Therefore, considering the pleadings, the evidence as well as the own admission of the first sister cumulatively, the Madras High Court said that it is without any doubt that the sisters had been ousted from claiming any share in the properties of their mother.

Also read: Father attested brother’s sale deed, children lost 3.5 acres: What Madras HC ruled on oral partition

Father’s 2005 Will stands unproven

The Madras High Court said that Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, mandates that an attesting witness beside identifying his signature should also depose about the affixure of signature by the testator in their presence.

However, in this case, the Madras High Court found that both the attesting witnesses to the Will had not deposed about witnessing Murugaiah (father) signing the Will.

Murugaiah’s Will showed that none of his properties went to his son. Rather the properties went to his two daughters and his son’s children.

But since the sisters did not implead the brother’s children as party to this case, the high court considered that a fatal error. So the court did not decide who would get the father’s properties. The court ruled that the sisters won’t get the mother’s properties since they were ousted.