The Supreme Court has made a significant observation in the matter of H. Vasanthi v. A Santha, stating that it is not compulsory that partition should be effected exclusively through a written instrument in strict accordance with the requirements of law.

In the specific case at hand, the plaintiff’s contention centered around the ancestral property, tracking it back to plaintiff’s grandfather. According to the plaintiff, the said property was purchased through a registered sale deed. Her grandfather’s son, the first defendant, inherited the said property as Joint Hindu Family Property, thereby passing it down to his son, the second defendant and the plaintiff herself (First defendant’s daughter). An agreement of sale between the first and second defendant and a third party was executed.

A partial partition was undertaken on February 24, 1980 which involved the plaintiff, first and second defendants and other siblings. The Hindu Succession Act’s amendment (Section 29A) on March 25, 1989 conferred coparcener status and partition rights to unmarried daughters. Although the plaintiff got married on July 7, 1989, she subsequently initiated legal proceedings seeking partition of the property. Simultaneously, she prayed for partition, asserting that the rights and entitlements of the plaintiff could not have been transferred by the first and second defendants, thus forming the basis for her partition suit.

The central issue presented before the Court pertained to whether the property outlined in the plaint schedule exhibited the characteristics of a coparcenary status as of March 25, 1989 and if it is available for partition.

Earlier, the suit was dismissed by trial Court and subsequently the dismissal was upheld by the Madras High Court on the grounds that the subject property was ineligible for partition as of the date of coming into force of Section 29A.

The Court, in its judgement, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to substantiate the continuous coparcenary status of the property indicated in the plaint schedule. The mere acquisition of the coparcenary status by the Plaintiff cannot warrant a partition in her favour unless the plaintiff establishes that the partial partition did not affect the coparcenary rights.

Furthermore, the court observed that there is no prohibition in effecting a partition through means other than a written instrument by duly complying with the requirements of law. In essence, the division of coparcenary property could also be executed through a settlement or oral agreement.