Brother Refuses to Give Sister Her Property Share; Bombay HC Upholds Her 1/3 Ownership Right

Bombay High Court Upholds Sister's One-Third Property Share

The Bombay High Court has upheld a woman's right to a one-third share in ancestral family property after her brother challenged her ownership claim, arguing that she had already given up her rights.

The dispute involved ancestral agricultural land and a house belonging to the family. The brother claimed that his sister had relinquished her share through an earlier oral arrangement, while the sister maintained that she had never surrendered her ownership rights.

In its ruling, the High Court held that the brother had failed to establish that his sister had consciously relinquished her share. The court therefore upheld the division under which the sister retained one-third of the disputed property and the brother held the remaining two-thirds.

How the Family Property Dispute Began

The case concerned siblings Shekhar Shankar Joshi and Anita Arun Bhave and their ancestral property, including agricultural land identified as Gat No. 27 and a house.

After their father died, the names of the mother, Shakuntala, and both children were entered in the relevant revenue records.

In 1991, Anita signed an affidavit consenting to the deletion of her name from certain revenue records. Her brother later relied on this affidavit to argue that she had given up her share in the family property.

Anita, however, argued that the affidavit merely related to the revenue records and did not contain a declaration that she was abandoning her ownership rights.

Mother Transferred Her Share to Her Son in 2013

A key development occurred on March 25, 2013, when the siblings' mother executed a registered relinquishment deed transferring her interest in the disputed property to her son, Shekhar.

The brother relied on this deed to claim a larger ownership share. The validity of the mother's relinquishment deed was upheld by the first appellate court, which determined that the mother's one-third interest had passed to her son.

As a result, the ownership shares were determined as follows:

• Anita, the sister: One-third share.

• Shekhar, the brother: Two-thirds share, including the interest transferred by their mother.

The brother nevertheless challenged his sister's entitlement, arguing that she had separately relinquished her own rights.

Can a Person Give Up Ancestral Property Rights Orally?

The Bombay High Court clarified an important legal distinction: a coparcener may, in certain circumstances, relinquish a share in joint family property orally without executing a written or registered instrument.

However, the person relying on an alleged oral relinquishment must prove that it actually occurred and that the individual clearly intended to abandon their rights.

The court emphasised that such relinquishment cannot simply be presumed from a person's conduct, silence or removal from revenue records. The legal position also depends on the nature of the property and the circumstances of the case.

Why the Sister's Affidavit Was Not Enough

The brother argued that the 1991 affidavit and the subsequent family arrangements showed that his sister had already surrendered her interest in the ancestral property.

The High Court rejected this argument because the affidavit did not expressly state that Anita was relinquishing her ownership rights. It merely recorded her consent to the deletion of her name from the revenue records.

The court distinguished between changing revenue records and transferring or surrendering ownership. Revenue entries are primarily maintained for administrative and fiscal purposes and do not, on their own, conclusively determine title to property.

The brother also argued that his sister's acceptance of an arrangement involving another family property demonstrated that she had abandoned her rights. The court held that accepting another person's entitlement does not automatically mean surrendering one's own share.

Bombay High Court Dismisses Brother's Appeal

The dispute reached the Bombay High Court through a second appeal filed by Shekhar Shankar Joshi.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that there was insufficient evidence to establish the alleged oral relinquishment by Anita. The court found no reason to interfere with the first appellate court's determination of the parties' shares.

The second appeal was dismissed, leaving the sister's one-third share intact. The mother's registered relinquishment deed remained valid, allowing the brother to retain the additional share transferred to him by their mother.

What Does the Judgment Mean for Property Owners?

The ruling highlights the importance of documenting family property arrangements clearly.

Family members should not assume that a person's name being removed from revenue records automatically ends their ownership rights. Similarly, an alleged verbal agreement may be disputed if there is insufficient evidence of the person's intention to relinquish their interest.

For families dividing inherited property, the judgment reinforces the value of obtaining appropriate legal advice and recording settlements or transfers through legally valid documents wherever required.

The ruling does not mean that every daughter automatically receives a one-third share in every family property dispute. The share depends on the property's legal character, the applicable succession rules, existing ownership interests and the facts of the particular case.

Key Takeaways

• The Bombay High Court upheld a sister's one-third share in ancestral property.

• The brother claimed she had previously relinquished her rights orally.

• Their mother had executed a registered relinquishment deed transferring her one-third interest to her son in 2013.

• The court held that an affidavit used to remove a name from revenue records did not, by itself, prove surrender of ownership.

• Oral relinquishment of ancestral property rights may be legally possible, but it must be proved by the person asserting it.

• The brother's second appeal was dismissed, leaving the sister's one-third share intact.