Granddaughter Can’t Reopen Settled Property Deal: HC

• Family property settlement accepted decades ago cannot be reopened

• Execution court cannot revisit settled title or partition issues

• Granddaughter found to have no legal right in eviction proceedings

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a granddaughter cannot claim rights over a property once her mother and other legal heirs accepted a court-recognised family settlement and subsequently sold the property. The court stressed that long-settled arrangements cannot be reopened during execution proceedings.

In its judgment dated January 5, 2026, the High Court dismissed a plea filed by a granddaughter seeking to be added as a decree holder in eviction proceedings initiated by the property’s new owner. The court held that she had no legal title or interest in the property, as the settlement had already been accepted and acted upon decades earlier.

Why the court rejected the claim

The dispute arose after a resort company, which had lawfully purchased the property, obtained eviction orders against tenants and sub-tenants. When the company moved to execute the eviction decree, the granddaughter approached the court claiming inherited rights and alleging that the original family partition was incomplete.

However, the High Court noted that the property had been part of a judicially settled family arrangement, approved by a district court in the early 1980s. Under this arrangement, the legal heirs—including the granddaughter’s mother—had voluntarily accepted their respective shares. Some heirs received movable assets, while others received specific immovable properties.

Importantly, the portion of the property involved in the eviction proceedings had gone to a different family branch, which later sold it through lawful transactions. The court observed that the granddaughter’s branch was already represented at the time of settlement and had raised no objections for over four decades.

Execution court cannot reopen settled titles

The High Court emphasised a key legal principle: an execution court cannot go behind a decree or reopen settled questions of title and partition. Since the eviction decree flowed from valid ownership acquired through lawful sale deeds, the granddaughter had no direct connection—or legal nexus—with the decree being executed.

The court also noted that the granddaughter herself had benefited from the family arrangement, having received other properties. Any grievance regarding unequal distribution, the judges said, would require a separate legal action, not interference in execution proceedings between the new owner and tenants.

Long silence weighed against the claimant

Another critical factor was time. The court pointed out that the family members had enjoyed their allotted properties for more than 40 years without challenge. Allowing a fresh claim at this stage would undermine the finality of court-approved settlements and disrupt settled property rights.

“The right, title and interest in the subject property belongs exclusively to the branch to which it was allotted,” the court observed, adding that the granddaughter had no locus standi to intervene in the eviction case.

Final outcome

Setting aside an earlier order that had allowed her impleadment, the High Court quashed the decision of the Small Causes Court and permitted the execution proceedings to continue. The writ petition filed by the property’s current owner was allowed, with no costs imposed.

The ruling reinforces the legal principle that accepted family settlements and completed property transactions carry finality, and heirs cannot revive old claims once rights have been lawfully transferred and acted upon.