The Supreme Court on November 6 held that a registered release deed executed by a coparcener relinquishing their share in joint family property takes effect at once and is not contingent on further implementation steps.

“A release by a coparcener for consideration has immediate legal effect in divesting his coparcenary interest. Its operation is not dependent on later actions,” the Bench stated.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and NV Anjaria set aside the concurrent findings of the Karnataka High Court and the trial court, which had treated the disputed properties as joint family assets and directed partition among all heirs. The Appellant contended that his two brothers had executed registered relinquishment deeds in his favour, and a subsequent palupatti (family arrangement) in 1972 recorded separation of status and division of shares, which each member had been managing independently for decades.

The lower courts, however, declined to recognize the effect of the release deeds and disregarded the family settlement. The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, observing that the validity of a relinquishment deed does not depend on explicit acknowledgment in later documents or evidence of being “acted upon”.

On the admissibility of the unregistered family settlement, the Court reaffirmed that such a document is valid for collateral purposes, including proving severance of joint status and the manner of subsequent possession. The Bench rejected the argument that lack of registration rendered the document ineffective, clarifying that a written declaration of intent to separate is legally sufficient under Hindu law to sever joint family status, regardless of physical division of the property.

The Court distinguished between severance of joint status and division by metes and bounds, noting that severance may occur by clear expression of intention alone. It also emphasized that the parties’ long-standing separate possession, reflected in revenue records, corroborated the arrangement.

Setting aside the trial court and High Court decisions, the Court directed the trial court to prepare the final decree by metes and bounds consistent with the recognized shares. It also directed that any transactions made during the pendency of the suit concerning the specified properties must be reconciled during the final decree proceedings without disturbing the declared equal shares.

Case Title: P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors.