LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 10 September 2026

Is property allotted to a coparcener on partition his self-acquired property and not joint family property?

M.Santhanam v. P.Ponram
AS(MD).56/2024 · 2026:MHC:3755 · A.S(MD)No.56 of 2024
Coram: Justice P.Vadamalai
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Property allotted to a coparcener on partition is his self-acquired property and is not joint family property.

Yes. Property allotted to a coparcener on partition is his self-acquired property and is not joint family property. After a partition each party receives a separate and distinct share which becomes their self-acquired property with absolute rights to sell, transfer or bequeath, and the share ceases to retain the incidents of joint family property. (¶15)

Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Registered settlement deed — Specific denial — Partition — Self-acquired property — Partition — Property allotted to a coparcener — Self-acquired, not ancestral — Held: Property allotted to a coparcener on partition ceases to retain the incidents of joint family property and becomes his self-acquired property with absolute rights. (¶15) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Registered document — Attesting witness not required — Held further: Where execution of a registered document other than a Will is not specifically denied, the proviso to s.68 applies and no attesting witness need be called. (¶17, 19) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s.68 — Presumption of valid execution — Onus on the party challenging — Held further: A registered document is presumed to be validly executed, and the onus to rebut that presumption lies on the party challenging it. (¶18) Partition — Registered settlement deed standing in the way — Cancellation a condition precedent — Held further: A plaintiff cannot seek partition of property covered by a registered settlement deed without having it cancelled or set aside. Appeal dismissed. (¶21, 22)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 15A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently held in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. (2025 INSC 532) that, ‘after a partition, each party receives a separate and distinct share which becomes their self-acquired property with absolute rights to sell, transfer, or bequeath’ and that ‘after the joint family property has been distributed in accordance with law, it ceases to be joint family properties and the shares of the respective parties become their self-acquired properties.” So, there can be no doubt that the suit properties are self acquired properties of the father Ponnusamy. So, the suit properties are not ancestral properties and are not Hindu Undivided Family properties of the plaintiff and defendants as rightly argued by the counsel for the respondent/defendant relying on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uttam case (2016) 4 SCC 68 (Stated supra). It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs themselves in their pleading in the plaint stated that in an oral partition their father derived the suit properties as his share. Hence, they cannot say that the suit properties are their ancestral properties.
Acts & Sections
s.68 Indian Evidence Act, 1872

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M.Santhanam v. P.Ponram — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Must an attesting witness be called to prove a registered document, other than a Will, whose execution is not specifically denied?Is a registered document presumed to be validly executed, with the onus to rebut that presumption on the person challenging it?Can a plaintiff seek partition of property covered by a registered settlement deed without having it cancelled or set aside?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections