Madras High Court
Subbiah vs Subbiah Naicker (Died) on 8 March, 2022
S.A.No.324 of 2003
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2022
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
S.A.No.324 of 2003
Subbiah ...Appellant/Appellant / plaintiff
Vs.
1.Subbiah Naicker (Died)
2.A.S.A.Radhakrishna Raja
3.S.Ramalakshmi
4.S.Saravanakumar
5.S.Pothiraj
6.S.Mahesh
7.R.Sagunthalai ...Respondents
/Respondents/ Defendants
[Respondents 3 to 7 are brought on record
as Lrs of the deceased 1st respondent vide
Court order dated 05.01.2022 made in
CMP(MD)Nos.10821 to 10823 in S.A.No.324
of 2003]
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as against the judgment
and decree dated 23.01.2002 in A.S.No.38 of 2001, before
the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil confirming the
judgment and decree dated 25.04.2001 in O.S.No.36 of
1997,before the Principal District Munsif, Sankarankoil.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Muthu Geethaiyan
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.F.X.Eugene
For Respondent : No appearance
Nos.3 to 7
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
JUDGMENT
This Second appeal is filed as against the
concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant is
the plaintiff. He filed the suit in O.S.No.36 of 1997
before the District Munsif, Sanakarankoil, for
declaration and for permanent injunction as against
respondents 1 and 2. The suit was dismissed on
25.04.2001. The appeal filed by him in A.S.No.38 of 2001
before the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil was also
dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23.01.2002.
2.As against the above concurrent findings of the
courts, the present second appeal has been filed and this
Court admitted the second appeal on the following
substantial questions of law, on 07.03.2003:
1. Whether the findings of the Courts below that the
plaintiff has not proved his title is legally
sustainable on the face of the documentary evidence
Ex.A2, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 coupled with the oral
documentary of P.W.3, D.W.1 and D.W.2?
2. Whether the findings of the Courts below that the
plaintiff has not proved his possession is legally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
sustainable on the face of the admission made by D.W.
1 and D.W.2 in their evidence that the plaintiff's
mother and plaintiff are in continuous possession of
the suit property?
3.Mr.Muthugeethaniyan, learned Counsel for the
appellant has made his submission through the following
genealogy:
Avudaiammal – Gengaiah Naicker
Death certificate [died 1951]
Ex.A3, 28.01.1951
Daughter
Nachiarammal Venkatasamy Naicker
Death certificate [died 1939]
Ex.A4, 08.06.1939
Gengammal Seeni Naicker Lakshmiammal-Balakrishnan Subbaiah Naicker
[died in 1960 [died in 1963 without issues][1st def died
Ex.A.5] [married] 05.09.2015
Wife Rajammal] LRS R3- R7]
---------------------------
Subbaiah [Son]
[Plaintiff/Appellant]
Gift Deed dated 22.11.1991 Raju [son]
Claiming title as per Ex.A7 Jeyalakshmi [wife]
Originally S.No.184/2
Re.S.No.318/5 2 Acre 82 cents
Sold property by sale deed
to the 2nd respondent
A.S.A.Rathakrishna Raja,
claiming title as per Ex.B2
S.No.318/5, 2 Acre 04 cents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
4.The Subject matter of the suit is the second
schedule property of 2 Acres 82 Cents. The suit
properties originally belong to one Avudaiammal, wife of
Gengaiah Naicker, in Survey No.184/2 to an extent of
4.7 Acres. Avudaiammal purchased the suit property in the
year 1926, vide Ex.A1 and she executed a settlement deed
in respect of the property, in favour of her daughter
Nachiarammal on 05.11.1936 vide Ex.A2. As per the
settlement deed Ex.A2, the properties were settled in
favour of Nachiarammal with a condition that it would be
mutually enjoyed by her mother Avudaiammal and
Nachiarammal till their lifetime and thereafter, it has
to go the female descendants of Nachiarammal. The said
Nachiarammal pre-deceased Avudaiammal on 08.06.1939,
leaving behind her two sons and two daughters, namely,
Gengammal, Seeni Naicker, Lakshmiammal and Subbaiah
Naicker and her death certificate is marked as Ex.A4.
Avudaimmal died on 28.01.1951 and her death certificate
is marked as Ex.A3. After the death of Avudaiammal as per
the settlement deed Ex.A2, the properties should go to
the daughters of Nachiarammal, namely, Gengammal and
Lakshmiammal. According to the plaintiff, Lakshmiammal
was an insane person. However, in the year 1951 she was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
married to one Balakrishnan, who left his wife
Lakshmiammal under the custody of Gengammal in the year
1958 and also married another woman. Thereafter,
the entire property was under the custody of Gengammal.
While so, the said Lakshmiammal died in the year 1963.
Gengammal gave her daughter to her brother Subbaiah
Naicker, the first defendant and also settled 1 Acre
25 cents, the first scheduled property in his favour.
The second schedule property was in possession of
Gengammal. She also executed a gift deed of the 2 acres
and 82 cents in Survey No.184/2(Re-survey No.318/5) to
her son/ plaintiff (Subbaiah) by gift deed dated
22.11.1991. From the year 1991, the second schedule
property was in possession of the plaintiff and the patta
was also issued in patta No.268. He also mortgaged the
second schedule property to one Rengaraj on 18.05.1995.
Under such circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 attempted
to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and
hence, he filed the above suit for declaration to declare
the second schedule property belongs to him and for a
consequential permanent injunction as against respondents
1 and 2. The suit was dismissed by the Principal District
Munsif, Sankarankoil and the appeal filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
plaintiff before the Sub Court, Sankarankoil was also
dismissed.
5.Mr.Muthugeethaiyan, learned Counsel for the
appellant submits that the suit mentioned properties in
Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 originally belong to
Avudaiammal and there is no dispute with regard to the
same and the said Avudaiammal has purchased the property
in the year 1926, vide Ex.A1 and settled the property in
favour of her daughter, Nachiarammal in the year 1936
vide Ex.A2, however, with a condition that after their
lifetime, it has to go to the female descendants of
Nachiarammal. There is no dispute that Gengammal and
Lakshmiammal are the female descendants of Nachiarammal.
Lakshmiammal became insane in the year 1958, her husband
Balakrishnan divorced her in a Village Panchayat and she
was under the custody of Gengammal, the mother of the
plaintiff and the said Lakshmiammal died in the year 1963
without any issue. From the property in Survey No.184/2,
Gengammal gave first schedule property of 1.25 Acres to
her brother cum son-in-law, viz., Subbaiah Naicker by
partition deed dated 29.06.1968 and settled the remaining
2.82 Acres the second schedule property to her son / the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
plaintiff vide gift deed dated 22.11.1991. However, the
first defendant disturbed the peaceful possession of the
plaintiff that the property of Gengammal has to go to the
female descendant, i.e., to his wife and therefore, the
plaintiff cannot claim any right over the property.
The second defendant claimed that he purchased the
property from one Jeyalakshmi, wife of one Raju, grandson
of Nachiarammal on 17.02.1995 through Ex.B2. Raju claims
title through a Will, but it was not marked as exhibit
before the trial Court. As per the Will the document
executed by Raju in favour of Jeyalakshmi, is marked as
Ex.B3, which was registered at Padasalai, Kerala on
08.11.1993 and through that document Jeyalakshmi executed
Ex.B2, in favour of the second defendant on 17.02.1995.
By virtue of these documents, the second defendant claims
title over the property in Old.S.No.184/2 (Resurvey No.
318/5) to the extent of 2 Acres 4 Cents. Though the trial
Court and the first appellate Court have not accepted the
said Will, held that Balakrishnan, husband of
Lakshmiammal, is the legal heir of the portion of the
property of Lakshmiammal and therefore, Balakrishnan is
having right over the half of the property in Survey No.
184/2 to an extent of 2.4 Acres.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
6.The learned Counsel for the appellant by referring
the provisions under Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 submits that Lakshmiammal died
intestate in the year 1963 without any issue. Even before
that Balakrishnan divorcing her wife Lakshmiammal in a
village panchayat, he left her under the custody of
Gengammal, the mother of the plaintiff in the year 1958.
Balakrishnan, who was examined as PW3 has also admitted
the same. Balakrishnan also married another woman.
This property subject matter of the suit was inherited by
Lakshiammal through her mother Nachiarammal, pursuant to
the settlement deed Ex.A2. If a female hindu dies
intestate, without leaving any issue, then the property
inherited by her from her mother would go to heirs of her
father, as per Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 and the same is extracted here under:
“15.General rules of succession in the
case of female Hindus: (1) the property of a
female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve
according to the rules set out in section 16-
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters
(including the children of any pre-deceased
son or daughter) and the husband;
(b)Secondly, upon the heirs of the
husband;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the
father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother;
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-section (1)-
(a) any property inherited by a female
Hindu from her father or mother shall
devolve, in the absence of any son or
daughter of the deceased (including the
children of any pre-deceased son or
daughter) not upon the other heirs referred
to in sub-section (1) in the order specified
therein, but upon the heirs of the father;
7.The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied
on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by Lrs Vs Ponnusamy and Ors
[in Civil Appeal No.6659 of 2011, dated 20.11.2022] and
the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“70.Section 14 (I) converted all limited
estates owned by women into absolute estates and
the succession of these properties in the
absence of a will or testament would take place
in consonance with Section 15 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, which reads as follows:-
44“Section -15. General rules of
succession in the case of female Hindus.—
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
(1) The property of a female Hindu dying
intestate shall devolve according to the
rules set out in section 16,—
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters
(including the children of any pre-deceased
son or daughter) and the husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father;
and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1)-
(a) any property inherited by a female
Hindu from her father or mother shall
devolve, in the absence of any son or
daughter of the deceased (including the
children of any pre-deceased son or
daughter) not upon the other heirs referred
to in sub-section (1) in the order specified
therein, but upon the heirs of the father;
and
(b) any property inherited by a female
Hindu from her husband or from her father-
in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any
son or daughter of the deceased (including
the children of any pre-deceased son or
daughter) not upon the other heirs referred
to in sub-section (1) in the order specified
therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.”
Section 16 – Order of Succession and
manner of distribution among heirs of a
female Hindu. –
The order of succession among the heirs
referred to in Section 15 shall be, and the
distribution of the intestate’s property
among those heirs shall take place,
according to the following rules, namely:—
Rule 1.—Among the heirs specified in
sub-section (1) of Section 15, those in one
entry shall be preferred to those 45 in any
succeeding entry and those included in the
same entry shall take simultaneously.
Rule 2.—If any son or daughter of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
intestate had predeceased the intestate
leaving his or her own children alive at the
time of the intestate’s death, the children
of such son or daughter shall take between
them the share which such son or daughter
would have taken if living at the
intestate’s death.
Rule 3.—The devolution of the property
of theon the heirs referred to in clauses
(b), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) and in
sub-section (2) to Section 15 shall be in
the same order and according to the same
rules as would have applied if the property
had been the father’s or the mother’s or the
husband’s as the case may be, and suchperson
had died intestate in respect thereof
immediately after the intestate’s death.”
71. The scheme of sub-Section (1) of
Section 15 goes to show that property of Hindu
females dying intestate is to devolve on her
own heirs, the list whereof is enumerated in
Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 15 (1).
Sub- Section (2) of Section 15 carves out
exceptions only with regard to property
acquired through inheritance and further, the
exception is confined to the property inherited
by a Hindu female either from her father or
mother, or from her husband, or from her
father-in-law. The exceptions carved out by
sub-Section (2) shall operate only in the event
of the Hindu female dies without leaving any
direct heirs, i.e., her son or daughter or
children of the pre-deceased son or daughter.
72. Thus, if a female Hindu dies intestate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
without leaving any issue, then the property
inherited by her from her father or mother
would go to the heirs of her father whereas the
property inherited from her husband orfather-
in-law would go to the heirs of the husband. In
case, a female Hindu dies leaving behind her
husband or any issue, then Section 15(1)(a)
comes into operation and the properties left
behind including the properties which she
inherited from her parents would devolve
simultaneously upon her husband and her issues
as provided in Section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
73. The basic aim of the legislature in
enacting Section 15(2) is to ensure that
inherited property of a female Hindu dying
issueless and intestate, goes back to the
source.
74. Section 15(1)(d) provides that failing
all heirs of the female specified in Entries
(a)-(c), but not until then, all her property
howsoever acquired will devolve upon the heirs
of the father. The devolution upon the heirs of
the father shall be in the same order and
according to the same rules as would have
applied if the property had belonged to the
father and he had died intestate in respect
thereof immediately after her death. In the
present case the since the succession of the
suit properties opened in 1967 upon death of
Kupayee Ammal, the 1956 Act shall apply and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
thereby Ramasamy Gounder’s daughters being
Class-I heirs of their father too shall be
heirs and entitled to 1/5th share each in the
suit properties.
75. This Court while analysing the
provisions of Sections 15 & 16 of the Act in
the case of State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Singh &
Ors.15, has held as under:-
“7. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 groups
the heirs of a female intestate into five
categories and they are specified under
clauses (a) to (e). As per Sections 16
Rule 1 those in one clause shall be
preferred to those in the succeeding
clauses and those included in the same
clause shall take simultaneously. Sub-
section (2) of Section 15 begins with a
non-obstante clause providing that the
order of succession is not that
prescribed under sub-section (1) of
Section 15. It carves out two exceptions
to the general order of succes- sion
provided under sub-section (1). The first
exception relates to the property
inherited by a female Hindu from her
father or mother. That property shall
devolve, in the absence of any son or
daughter of the deceased (including the
children of the pre-deceased son or
daughter), not upon the other heirs
referred to in sub-section (1) in the
order specified therein, but upon the
heirs of the father. The second exception
is in relation to the property inherited
by a female Hindu 15 1992 Supp. (3) SCC
108 from her husband or from her father-
in-law. That property shall devolve, in
the absence of any son or daughter of the
deceased (including the children of the
pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
the other heirs referred to under sub-
section (1) in the order specified
thereunder but upon the heirs of the
husband.
8. The process of identifying the
heirs of the intestate under sub-section
(2) of Section 15 has been explained in
Bhajya v. Gopikabai and Anr. [1978] 3 SCR
561.There this Court observed that the
rule under which the property of the
intestate would devolve is regulated by
Rule 3 of Section 16 of the Act. Rule 3
of Section 16 provides that "the
devolution of the property of the
intestate on the heirs referred to in
clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section
(1) and in sub-section (2) of Section 15
shall be in the same order and according
to the same rules as would have applied
if the property had been the father's or
the mother's or the husband's as the case
may be, and such person had died
intestate in respect thereof immediately
after the intestate's death".
76. Again in the case of Bhagat Ram (dead) by
LRs. Vs. Teja Singh (dead) by LRs.16, a two-Judge
Bench of this Court analysing the provisions of
Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act reiterating the
view taken in the State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Singh
& Ors.(Supra), observed as
under :-
“The source from which she inherits
the property is always important and that
would govern the situation. Otherwise
persons who are not even remotely related
to the person who originally held the
property would acquire rights to inherit
that property. That would defeat the
intent and purpose of sub-Section 2 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
Section 15, which gives a special pattern
of succession. “
77. Applying the above settled legal
proposition to the facts of the case at
hands, since the succession of the suit
properties opened in 1967 upon death of
Kupayee Ammal, the 1956 Act shall apply
and thereby Ramasamy Gounder’s daughter’s
being Class-I heirs of their father too
shall also be heirs and entitled to 1/5th
Share in each of the suit properties.”
8.The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits
that in view of the document Ex.A6, there was a partition
among the legal heirs of Gengammal and by the said
partition they have given up the rights in the settlement
deed Ex.A2. According to the learned Counsel, as per
Ex.A6, document Ex.A2 has not been given effect at all.
The defendant Subbaiah Naicker has also filed a written
statement before the trial Court that he is also entitled
for a share in the property of Nachiarammal and
therefore, according to the learned Counsel, all the
legal heirs of Nachiarammal are having equal share in the
schedule mentioned property and among document Ex.A2 and
Ex.A6, the later document of partition between Gengammal
and Subbiah Naicker would prevail over, in view of Ex.A6.
Therefore, as per Hindu Succession Act all the legal
heirs of Nachiarammal are entitled for equal share
in the first schedule property. Further it is submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
that Raju, S/o.Seeni Naikcer got the share of
Lakshmiammal, from her husband Balakrishnan by virtue of
document Ex.B1, dated 17.07.1992. Further, the plaintiff
has to establish his case that he is entitled for the
entire property. But the plaintiff has not approached the
Court with clean hands.
9.Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and
the learned Counsel for the second respondent and perused
the materials placed on record.
10.The suit schedule properties originally belong to
Avudaiammal, W/o.Gengaiah Naicker. She purchased the
property in Old Survey No.184/2 to an extent of 4.7 Acres
in the year 1926 vide document Ex.A1. Avudaiammal had a
daughter viz., Nachiarammal. During her lifetime,
Avudaiammal executed a registered settlement deed in
favour of her daughter Nachiarammal on 05.11.1936 vide
document Ex.A2. As per the settlement deed Avudaiammal
and Nahicarammal have to enjoy the property till their
lifetime. Thereafter, the property has to go to the
female descendants of Nachiarammal. However, Nachiarammal
predeceased her mother Avudaiammal on 08.06.1939 and her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
mother Avudaiammal died on 28.01.1951. Their death
certificates are marked as Ex.A4 and Ex.A3 respectively.
Nachiarammal has two sons and two daughters. Gengammal is
the eldest daughter, followed by Seeni Naicker,
Lakshmiammal and Subbaiah Naicker. Lakshmiammal died in
the year 1963 without any issue. The plaintiff is the son
of Gengammal and Gengammal exchanged certain properties
to her brother Subbaiah Naicker in the year 1991 vide
Ex.A7. Balakrishnan [PW3] claiming to be the husband of
Lakshmiammal executed the release deed in favour of Raju
with regard to his half share of the property of
Lakshmiammal through document Ex.B1, dated 17.07.1992.
Raju, son of Seeni Naicker and also grandson of
Nachiarammal along with his mother Rajammal, wife of
Seeni Naicker executed sale deed dated 08.01.1993 in
favour of wife Jeyalakshmi, who in turn sold the property
by way of sale deed to the second respondent
A.S.Radhakrishna Raju to an extent of second 2.4 Acres in
Survey No.318/5 through document Ex.B2. Since
A.Radhakrishna Raja in the strength of Ex.B2 attempted to
enjoy the possession, the plaintiff, S/o.Gengammal, filed
the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
11.The suit was dismissed on 25.04.2001 by the
Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil. The appeal
filed in A.S.No.38 of 2001 before the Subordinate Judge,
Sankarankovil was also dismissed by judgment and decree
dated 23.01.2002.
12.The property is a self acquired property of
Avudaiammal in Old Survey No.184/2, which was purchased
by her in favour of 1926 vide document Ex.A1. With regard
to that property she created a settlement deed in the
year 1936, in favour of her daughter Nachiarammal with a
condition that after their lifetime, the property should
go to the female descendants of Nachiarammal.
Nachiarammal predeceased Avudaiammal in the year 1939 and
Avudaiammal passed away in the year 1951 and after the
death of Avudaiammal, the property was enjoyed by
Gengammal and her son plaintiff.
13.Subbiah Naicker, the brother of Gengammal, married
one of the daughters of Gengammal. After the marriage, a
partition was made between the plaintiff/appellant's
mother and Subbiah Naicker with regard to the property
in Survey No.184 /2 to an extent of 1.25 Acres through
document Ex.A6. The property of Subbiah Naicker was also
exchanged in favour of the plaintiff's mother.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
14.The said Lakshmiammal, female descendant of
Nachiarammal married one Balakrishnan (PW3), who
admitted in his evidence that Lakshmiammal suffered with
some mental disorder and therefore, she was under the
custody of the plaintiff's mother Gengammal and later on
died in the year 1967 without any issue and in the
meantime he also married two other women.
After the execution of document in Ex.A7, dated
22.11.1991, the said Balakrishnan executed a release deed
in favour of Raju, S/o.Seeni Naicker (second son of
Nachiarammal) vide document Ex.B1, dated 17.07.1992,
and released half of his share of the property in survey
No.184/2, in favour of Raju. In the strength of all these
documents Raju along with his mother Rajammal, wife of
Seeni Naicker executed sale deed in favour of Jeyalakshmi
in Ex.B3, dated 08.11.1993.
15.The contesting defendant / Respondent No.2
purchased the property in Old Survey No.184/2 Re Survey
No.318/5 to an extent of 2 Acres 4 Cents from Jeyalakshmi
through document Ex.B2, dated 17.02.1995.
16.The learned Counsel appearing for the second
respondent by referring document in Ex.A7 claims that
Subbiah, the plaintiff has created document Ex.A7 that of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
a gift deed and therefore, it is an admitted case that
the property in Old Survey No.184/2 New Survey No.318/5
was shared among the legal heirs of Nachiarammal.
17.It is not in dispute that the settlement deed
Ex.A2 was given effect. The appellate Court also admitted
the same and recorded in the findings that as per the
settlement deed, the property in Survey No.184/2 has to
go to the female descendant of Nachiarammal namely,
Gengammal and Lakshmiammal. The said Lakshmiammal died
intestate. The property in survey No.184/2 was inherited
by Lakshmiammal through settlement deed Ex.A2. As per
Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any
property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or
mother would devolve, in the absence of any son or
daughter, upon heirs of her father. In this case,
Lakshmiammal died intestate without any issue. It is also
claimed that the said Lakshmiammal was mentally affected
and therefore, she was under the custody of Gengammal.
Therefore, half share of the property of Lakshmiammal was
devolved upon the heirs of Venkatasamy Naicker and it has
to be divided equally among all the legal heirs of
Venkatasamy Naikcer. Accordingly, each may get 68 cents
of 2.04Acres in Old SurveyNo.184/2. Respondent No.1, died
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
pending the second appeal and his legal heirs were
brought on record as Respondents 3 to 7, but they did not
prefer to contest the second appeal. Respondent No.2
obtained the property through the sale deed Ex.B2,
executed by Jeyalakshmi, in favour of respondent No.2.
Jeyalakshmi obtained the property through her husband
Raju and she is entitled for a share of 68 cents as per
document Ex.A2 and the legal heir of Seeni Naicker, the
second son of Nachiarammal is having right only to an
extent of 68 Cents and that too from the share of
Lakshmiammal, which has been devolved upon to her father
after her demise in the year 1963, as per Section 15(2)
(a) of the Hindu Succession Act.
18.In the light of the above,
(i) the appellant is entitled to have 1.47 acres of
land ;
(ii) the legalheirs of the 1st defendant is entitled
to have 1.93 acres of land ; and
(iii) the 2nd defendant is entitled to have
0.68 acre.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
19.The second appeal is allowed on the above terms.
The judgment and decree passed dated 23.01.2002 in
A.S.No.38 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Sankarankovil and the judgment and decree dated
25.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.36 of 1997, on the file of
the Principal District Munsif, Sankarankoil are hereby
set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
08.03.2022
Index : yes/No
Internet : yes/No
dsk
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Sankarankovil.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Sankarankoil.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
B.PUGALENDHI., J
dsk
S.A.No.324 of 2003
08.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
