Madras High Court
At The Instance Of The Learned ... vs Tamizhazhagan on 5 July, 2021
AS.No.55 of 2013
AS.No.55 of 2013
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
At the instance of the learned counsel for the appellants, today this
matter has been posted under the caption “for being mentioned”.
2. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.
3. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants,
it is ordered that the tenth paragraph of the judgment in AS.No.55 of 2013
dated 05.07.2021 shall read as follows:
“10. Accordingly, the preliminary decree passed by
the court below is modified and plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants
1 to 3 are entitled to have 1/7 th share each plus another 1/49th
share each in the 1/7th share of their deceased father in respect
of item Nos.5, 6, 20 to 22 and ½ share in Item Nos.4 and 8 in 'B'
schedule properties. The 4th plaintiff, namely the mother of the
plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 is entitled to only 1/49 th
share in the above mentioned items of properties in 'B' schedule
properties. Insofar as item Nos.1 to 3, 9 to 11, 13, 16, 17 and ½
share in Item Nos.4 and 8 of 'B' schedule property are
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
concerned, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are
entitled to have 1/6th share each and the fourth plaintiff, mother
will not be entitled to any share in 'B' schedule properties.
Accordingly, the preliminary decree is modified.
4. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to issue a fresh order copy in
AS.No.55 of 2013 dated 05.07.2021 after making necessary corrections.
04.02.2022
lok
2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
AS.No.55 of 2013
04.02.2022
4/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 05.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON-BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.No.55 of 2013
and Cros.Obj.No.55 of 2019
1.Manimegalai
2.Sarasvathy
3.Devaki
4.Mallika ... Appellants
~Vs~
1.Tamizhazhagan
2.Kalaivani
3.Ananthavel
4.Bothuraja
5.Purushothaman
6.Manikandan
7.Subramani ...Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment
and Decree dated 30.10.2012 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the II
Additional District Judge, Tindivanam.
For Appellants : Ms.RV.Rukmani
5/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
for M/s.P.B.Ramanujam
For Respondents : Mr.N.Suresh for R1
No Appearance for R2 to R7
********
JUDGMENT
The Appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2012
passed in O.S.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional District Judge,
Tindivanam.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking
in the trial Court.
3. The suit is filed for partition. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit
properties are self acquired properties of one Ramalinga Gounder. He died
intestate in the year 1999. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the second defendant are his
daughters, the fourth plaintiff is his wife and defendants 1 to 3 are his sons.
After his demise, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 jointly enjoyed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
possession of the suit properties. While being so, defendants 1 and 2 were
refused their shares in the suit property. As per Hindu Succession Act, 1956
and Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1990 all the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3
are entitled in the 1/7th share in the suit property. Hence, the suit.
4. Resisting the same, the first defendant filed written statement and stated
that the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties and owned by
his grandfather and his father. Out of the income derived from the joint family
properties some of the properties were purchased by his father. Hence all the
properties are to be treated as joint family properties. In respect of Item Nos. 1
to 3, 9 to 11 and 13 which are situated in Ahur Village, are the properties of his
grandfather. After his demise his father was in possession and enjoyment of the
same. In respect of Item No. 14, the property is a Government Poramboke land
and as such it is not available for partition. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 3 are
entitled to 1/3rd share and thereafter in a notional division of 1/3rd share. Out
of the father-s 1/3 share, plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the defendants 1 to 3 are entitled
to have their equal share as 1/7 share in the suit properties. In respect of Item
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
Nos. 7 and 18 are concerned, both items were already sold out during the life
time of his father. Item Nos. 14 and 15 are the Government Poramboke land.
The third defendant and second plaintiff are enjoying 1/2 share of the suit
properties and the first defendant is enjoying the remaining 1/2 share of the suit
properties. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. The third defendant filed separate written statement and stated that the suit
property is a separate self acquired property of his father and after his demise
all are entitled to equal shares and sailing with the case of the plaintiffs.
4. On completion of the rival pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the
following issues:~
“1. Whether the suit properties are the separate properties of Ramalinga
Gounder is true?
2. Whether the Suit is affected by Partial partition due to non inclusion of
property in S.No.123/4?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to 4/7 share in the suit properties?
4. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?
Additional Issues:
1. Whether Item Nos. 1 to 3, 9 to 11 and 13 in schedule -B- are the properties
of plaintiffs and defendants Grandfather?
2. Whether Item Nos. 14 and 15 in Schedule -B- are Poramboke lands?
3. Whether Item Nos. 7 and 8 in -B- schedule were sold by their father
Ramalingam?“
5. On perusal of the records, on the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were
examined and 63 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A63. On the side of
the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and no documents were
marked. On considering the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the
respective parties and the submission made by the learned counsels, the Trial
Court partly decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred
this Appeal Suit.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Court below
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
ought to have granted preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs and the
defendants 1 to 3 herein except certain items of the properties and in respect of
all other properties . She further submitted that after Amendment in the year
2005 all the plaintiffs are entitled to have equal share. In support of her
contention she also relied upon the Judgment 2020(5) CTC 302 Vineeta
Sharma ~vs~ Rakesh Sharma and others.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent filed cross objection and
submitted that the Court below passed preliminary decree 8/42 shares to each of
the plaintiffs in respect of the property Item Nos.1 to 3, 9 to 12, 13, 16, 17 and
1/2 share in Item Nos. 4 and 18 are against law and liable to be dismissed.
Further the plaintiffs 1 to 3 cannot be treated as coparceners along with the first
defendant. The Amendment Act 2005 of the Central Act alone will govern the
case of the plaintiffs and as such they cannot be treated as coparceners and they
are not entitled to have equal share in the suit properties. Therefore, he prayed
to set aside the Judgment passed by the Court below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
8. Heard, Ms.RV.Rukmani, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the first respondent.
9. As per Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughter is conferred
the right. It makes daughter by birth a coparcener and the property confers the
same right in the ancestral property. The conferral of right is by birth and the
rights are given in the same manner with the insistence of the coparceners as
that of the son and she is treated as a coparcener and the same rights as if she
had been a son at the time of birth. In this regard, the Hon-ble Supreme Court
of India held the case of 2020(5) CTC 302 Vineeta Sharma ~vs~ Rakesh
Sharma and others held that:
“56. The prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring
new rights. The retrospective statute operates backward and takes away or
impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws. A retroactive statute is the
one that does not operate retrospectively. It operates in futuro. However, its
operation is based upon the character or status that arose earlier. Characteristic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
or event, which happened in the past or requisites which had been drawn from
antecedent events. Under the amended Section 6, since the right is given by
birth, that is an antecedent event, and the provisions operate concerning
claiming rights on and from the date of Amendment Act.
129. Resultantly, we answer the Reference as under:
(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 confer status of Coparcener on the daughter born before or after
Amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.
(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from
09.09.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or
alienation, Partition or Testamentary disposition which had taken place before
20th day of December 2004.
(iii) Since the right in Coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father
Coparcener should be living as on 09.09.2005.
(iv) The Statutory fiction of Partition created by Proviso to Section 6 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual
Partition or disruption of Coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of
ascertaining share of deceased Coparcener when he was survived by a Female
Heir, of Class~I as specified in the Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative
of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be
given full effect. Notwithstanding that a Preliminary Decree has been passed
the daughters are to be given share in Coparcenary equal to that of a son in
pending proceedings for Final Decree or in an Appeal.
(v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Act
of 1956, a plea of Oral Partition cannot be accepted as the Statutory recognised
mode of Partition effected by a Deed of Partition duly registered under the
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a Decree of a Court.
However, in exceptional cases where plea of Oral Partition is supported by
Public documents and Partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it
had been affected by a Decree of a Court, it may be accepted. A plea of
Partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected out
rightly.“
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
10. Accordingly, the preliminary decree passed by the Court below is modified
and plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to have 1/7th share in
respect of Item Nos. 5, 6, 20, 22 and 1/2 share in Item Nos. 4 and 8. Insofar as
the Item Nos. 1 to 3, 9 to 11, 13, 16, 17 and 1/2 share in Item Nos. 4 and 8 of
-B- schedule property are concerned, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3
are entitled to have equal share namely 8/49 and the fourth plaintiff is entitled
to have 1/49 share. Accordingly, the preliminary decree is modified.
11. In the result, this Appeal Suit is partly allowed. Cros.Obj.No.55 of 2019 is
disposed of. No costs.
05.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order /Non~speaking order
rna
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
The II Additional District Judge,
Tindivanam.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rna
A.S.No.55 of 2013
and Cros.Obj.No.55 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
AS.No.55 of 2013
05.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
