The concept of coparcenary under Hindu law has always involved a delicate balance between unity and individual autonomy. While the joint family system recognises collective ownership, it simultaneously permits individual members to sever their interest through clear acts such as partition or release. The recent Supreme Court judgment in P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3934 of 2006, decided on 6 November 2025) revisits these foundational principles, clarifying the legal effect of a coparcener’s release deed and the admissibility of unregistered family arrangements.
The case demonstrates that a registered release deed executed by a coparcener takes immediate effect, severing his or her rights in the joint family property, irrespective of subsequent recognition or physical division. It also affirms that unregistered family settlements can be looked into for collateral purposes to show disruption of joint status and separate enjoyment.
Background of the Case
The litigation originated from a partition suit among members of a Hindu joint family tracing lineage to one Pillappa. His widow, sons, and daughters were arrayed as parties. The plaintiffs claimed partition and separate possession of ancestral and acquired properties described in three schedules—
- Schedule “A”: ancestral immovable properties,
- Schedule “B”: properties purchased jointly in the names of two members, and
- Schedule “C”: movables, including lease rents.
Defendant No. 5, P. Anjanappa, resisted partition, asserting that:
- Two of his brothers (plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3) had executed registered release deeds relinquishing their coparcenary rights; and
- A partition (palupatti) had taken place on 11 February 1972 between him and another brother, which was acted upon.
The trial court and the Karnataka High Court rejected these defences, holding the release deeds as “not acted upon” and the palupatti as inadmissible for want of registration. Aggrieved, the legal heirs of defendant no. 5 approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court examined three main questions:
- Whether the registered release deeds of 1956 and 1967 were valid and what effect they had on the coparceners’ rights.
- Whether the unregistered palupatti of 11 February 1972 could be used to prove separation and independent possession.
- How the partitionable property and respective shares of the family members were to be determined in light of these findings.
Validity and Legal Effect of the Release Deeds
1. Registered Instruments Carry Presumption of Validity
The first release (Ex.D-15, dated 09.11.1956) was executed by plaintiff no. 2, and the second (Ex.D-16, dated 14.09.1967) by defendant no. 3. Both were registered deeds clearly stating relinquishment of rights in consideration of money or property. The Supreme Court held that registration creates a presumption of genuineness under Section 60 of the Registration Act and Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 89 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). Unless rebutted by cogent evidence, the presumption stands.
Quoting Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353, the Court reiterated that the burden to rebut the validity of a registered document lies upon the challenger, and mere silence or non-mention in later records does not undo its legal effect.
2. Release Deed Operates Instantly
The Court clarified that a release by a coparcener for consideration takes immediate effect, instantly divesting the coparcener of their coparcenary rights. The validity of such a release is not contingent upon its being “acted upon” later. Once executed and registered, the deed severs the releasing coparcener from the joint family and extinguishes his share.
This reasoning directly contradicts the trial court’s view that non-implementation rendered the deed ineffective. The Supreme Court emphasised that the efficacy of a registered relinquishment does not depend on subsequent recognition or mutation entries.
3. Equitable Estoppel Against Re-assertion of Rights
In support, the Court referred to Elumalai v. M. Kamala (2023) 13 SCC 27, which recognised the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Once an expectant heir voluntarily relinquishes rights for consideration and conducts himself accordingly, he cannot later assert claims contrary to his own act.
Thus, both plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3, who had executed release deeds in 1956 and 1967 respectively, were held excluded from the coparcenary thereafter.
4. Distinction Between Transfer and Relinquishment
The Court also clarified that a release by a coparcener is not a transfer but a renunciation of pre-existing interest, effective immediately upon execution. It is valid inter se coparceners even if the consideration is nominal or absent. Hence, the deeds in question were not hit by Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Outcome
Accordingly, the Court held both Ex.D-15 and Ex.D-16 to be valid, binding, and operative from their respective dates, thereby removing plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3 from the coparcenary from 1956 and 1967 onwards. On the death of the family patriarch in 1969, the coparcenary stood reduced to only two members—plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5.
The “Palupatti” and Collateral Proof of Severance
1. Nature of the Document
The so-called “palupatti” dated 11 February 1972 recorded a family arrangement between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 after the earlier releases. The plaintiffs argued that it was an unregistered partition deed, inadmissible in evidence. The appellants contended that it at least proved disruption of joint family status and separate possession.
2. Admissibility for Collateral Purposes
Relying on precedents such as Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa (2019) 6 SCC 409 and Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao (2015) 16 SCC 787, the Court reiterated that an unregistered family arrangement can be used for collateral purposes—namely to show:
- that the joint family status was disrupted;
- that parties were in separate possession; or
- to explain the nature of the subsequent enjoyment of property.
Thus, even though registration was mandatory for a document purporting to create or extinguish rights, the palupatti could be relied upon to prove separation in status and the fact of independent possession thereafter.
3. Proof from Conduct and Revenue Records
The Court examined the surrounding evidence:
- Separate revenue entries in the names of plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 after 1972;
- Distinct cultivation and residence;
- Independent mortgages and alienations by plaintiff no. 1; and
- The fact that the allotted lands lay in different villages with no overlapping survey numbers.
Such conduct corroborated that the palupatti had been acted upon and reflected a real severance.
The Court cited Kalyani v. Narayanan (1980 Supp SCC 298) to emphasise that severance of joint status occurs when there is an unequivocal intention to separate, communicated to other members, even if no physical division occurs.
4. Upholding Family Arrangements
Reiterating the liberal approach toward family settlements laid down in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119, the bench observed that courts lean in favour of sustaining such arrangements to maintain peace in the family rather than invalidating them on technicalities like lack of registration.
Outcome
The Supreme Court therefore held that the palupatti was admissible and reliable for collateral purposes, proving that the joint family stood disrupted on 11 February 1972 and that subsequent possession was separate. The document was not treated as a conveyance, but as proof of separate enjoyment.
Determination of Partitionable Estate and Shares
Having validated the release deeds and recognised the severance evidenced by the palupatti, the Court re-computed the family shares accordingly.
1. Composition of the Partitionable Pool
Only Schedule “A” properties (ancestral immovables) and items 1 to 16 of Schedule “C” (movables) formed the joint family pool.
Schedule “B” property, purchased jointly by defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6, and item 17 of Schedule “C” (lease amounts), were excluded, since they represented joint acquisitions between two individuals, not coparcenary property.
2. Coparcenary at the Time of the Father’s Death
At the death of propositus Pillappa in 1969, the coparcenary consisted only of:
- Plaintiff no. 1, and
- Defendant no. 5,
because plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3 had already executed valid releases. Therefore, a notional partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (pre-amendment), was worked out as follows:
- Father (Pillappa): 1/3
- Plaintiff no. 1: 1/3
- Defendant no. 5: 1/3
Pillappa’s 1/3 share devolved equally among his seven surviving children (plaintiff no. 1, defendant no. 5, and five daughters). Each got 1/7 of 1/3 = 1/21.
Thus, the final shares were:
- Plaintiff no. 1 → 1/3 + 1/21 = 8/21,
- Defendant no. 5 → 1/3 + 1/21 = 8/21,
- Each of the five daughters (or their branches) → 1/21 each.
Plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3, having released their interests, took no share.
3. Shares in Schedule “B” Property
The Court affirmed the joint ownership of defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6 in Schedule “B” and item 17 of Schedule “C”, each entitled to a half share. Any rents or proceeds would be apportioned equally.
4. Directions for Final Decree
The trial court was directed to:
- Draw a fresh preliminary decree in accordance with the Supreme Court’s computation;
- Demarcate shares by metes and bounds in Schedule “A” and relevant items of “C”; and
- Ensure that alienations, if any, did not disturb the equal halves of defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6 in Schedule “B”.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors. marks a significant reaffirmation of Hindu joint family principles. It draws a clear distinction between formal transfers and family relinquishments, emphasising that once a coparcener executes a registered release deed, his rights cease immediately and cannot later revive.
Equally important is the Court’s pragmatic acceptance of unregistered family settlements for limited evidentiary use—reflecting an understanding of how families actually manage property relations in India.
By harmonising the doctrines of registration, estoppel, and family arrangement, the decision strengthens both legal certainty and family harmony, underscoring that justice in property disputes is achieved not by technical rigidity but by respect for genuine human arrangements.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams