N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors.: Supreme Court Upholds Daughter’s Ownership Rights

COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL SERIES ON LANDMARKS JDUGEMENTS ON WILLS, CODICIL & PROBATE

 

N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors.: Supreme Court Upholds Daughter’s Ownership Rights

 

1985 Document Ruled as Settlement/Gift, Not Will

 

Cancellation and Sale to Son Declared Void

Also Read: Derek A C Lobo & Others v. Ulric M A Lobo (Dead) by Lrs. & Others: Supreme Court Confirms Probate of Mother’s Will

 

By Vishwas Kumar

New Delhi: March 19, 2026

 

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India in N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4312 of 2025) settled a long-standing family property dispute by affirming the daughter’s ownership rights. The Division Bench comprising, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan ruled that the father’s 1985 document executed in favour of his daughter was not a testamentary Will but a settlement deed/gift operative in praesenti.

Also Read: Savitri Bai & Another v. Savitri Bai: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Will Over Sale Deed

The dispute arose when the father’s document was contested by the son, who claimed it was merely a Will, effective only after the father’s death. The lower courts had accepted this interpretation. However, the High Court reversed the finding, holding that the document conveyed present ownership rights to the daughter, subject to the father’s reserved life interest. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the language and intent of the document clearly indicated a settlement/gift rather than a Will.

The Court further declared that the father’s subsequent cancellation of the deed and sale of the property to his son were legally void. Since the gift had already vested ownership in the daughter, the father had no authority to revoke or transfer the property thereafter. Consequently, the daughter’s ownership was confirmed as valid and binding.

This ruling reinforces the principle that once a gift or settlement deed is executed and accepted, it operates immediately, even if the donor reserves certain rights during their lifetime. The judgment is significant in clarifying the distinction between testamentary dispositions and present transfers, ensuring protection of women’s property rights in family disputes.

 

Also Read: Thangam & Another v. Navamani Ammal: Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Registered Will

For More, Read Here the Summary of the Judgement from the Book:  WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, read below or open page no 436, Chapter 14.1 in the book. (Online book purchase link available here on: Buy online: Amazon | Flipkart

 

 

 

Also Read: Meera Devi (D) Thr. Lr. v. Dinesh Chandra Joshi (D) Thr. Lrs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction for Rent Default

1.         Facts of the Case:

The dispute arose between a daughter (plaintiff) and her brother (defendant-appellant) concerning a property conveyed by their father through a registered document dated 26.06.1985. The father later executed a cancellation deed and sale deed dated 19.10.1993 in favour of the son. The trial court and the first appellate court held the 1985 document to be a Will, not a gift, dismissing the daughter’s suit. The Kerala High Court reversed the findings, construing the document as a gift deed and declaring the later deeds void. The son appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

2.         Law Points Involved:

(i).        Whether the 1985 document constituted a Gift, Settlement, or Will.

(ii).       Determination of substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.

(iii).      Effect of reservation of life interest and right of mortgage by donor.

(iv).     Nature of acceptance of gift and requirement of possession.

(v).      Principles governing distinction and overlap between Gift, Settlement, and Will.

 

3.         Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

(i).        Constitution of India — Articles 133, 142;

(ii).       Code of Civil Procedure — Sections 100, 109;

(iii).      Registration Act — Section 17;

(iv).     Transfer of Property Act — Sections 11, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128;

(v).      Specific Relief Act — Sections 2(b), 2(q);

(vi).     Indian Stamp Act — Articles 31, 33;

(vi).     Succession Act — Sections 2(h), 59, 61, 62, 63, 70, 89.

 

4.         Judgments Referred:

(i).        Ramaswami Naidu v. Gopalakrishna Naidu, (1977) 02 MAD CK 0018

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/23229/ramaswami-naidu-and-another-appellant-hash-gopalakrishna-naidu-and-others-respondent

(ii).       P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N. Ananthachary, (2010) 03 SC CK 0040.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/665219/pk-mohan-ram-appellant-hash-bn-ananthachary-and-others-respondent

Also Read: Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh & Others: Supreme Court Rejects Suspicious Will, Restores Equal Shares

 

(iii).      K. Balakrishnan v. K. Kamalam, (2003) 12 SC CK 0070

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/655530/k-balakrishnan-appellant-hash-k-kamalam-and-others-respondent-brk-kamalam-appellant-hash-k-balak

 

(iv).     Renikuntla Rajamma v. K. Sarwanamma, (2014) 07 SC CK 0039,

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/686002/renikuntla-rajamma-appellant-hash-k-sarwanamma-respondent

 

Also Read: Lilian Coelho & Others v. Myra Philomena Coalho: Supreme Court Restores Scrutiny of Suspicious Wills

(v).      Daulat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 12 SC CK 0020.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1061679/daulat-singh-d-thr-lrs-appellant-hash-state-of-rajasthan-ors-respondent

 

(vi).     Ramachandra Reddy v. Ramulu Ammal, (2024) 11 SC CK 0034.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/1210110/ramachandra-reddy-dead-thr-lrs-ors-appellant-hash-ramulu-ammal-dead-thr-lrs-respondent

 

(vii).    Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SC CK 0105.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/689376/satya-pal-anand-appellant-hash-state-of-mp-respondent-1

 

(viii).   Navneet Lal alias Rangi v. Gokul & Ors., (1975) 12 SC CK 0025, https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/648579/navneet-lal-alias-rangi-appellant-hash-gokul-and-others-respondent

 

(ix).      Mathai Samuel v. Eapen Eapen, (2012) 11 SC CK 0055.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/668400/mathai-samuel-and-others-appellant-hash-eapen-eapen-dead-by-lrs-and-others-respondent

 

(x).       Mauleshwar Mani v. Jagdish Prasad, (2002) 01 SC CK 0081.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/653966/mauleshwar-mani-and-others-appellant-hash-jagdish-prasad-and-others-respondent

Also Read: Gopal Krishan & Others v. Daulat Ram & Others: Supreme Court Restores Validity of Will

 

(xi).      Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 08 SC CK 0169.

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/684307/smt-sawarni-appellant-hash-smt-inder-kaur-and-others-respondent