V.Sankar vs V.Ulaganathan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6173 Mad

                                                                             A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 25.03.2022

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                            A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

                     V.Sankar                               ... Appellant / 1st Defendant

                                                      Vs.
                     1. V.Ulaganathan
                     2. P.Balammal
                     3. S.Mariammal
                     4. S.Rajeswari
                     5. M.Susila
                     6. Latha
                     7. B.Uma
                     8. P.Shanthi
                     9. G.Gowri
                     10. G.Maheswari
                     11. V.Indrani                          ... Respondents 1 to 11 / Plaintiffs

                     12. J.Pandiammal                       ... 12th Respondent / 2nd Defendant

                     PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code,
                     1908 against the judgment and decree of the learned V Additional District
                     Judge, Madurai, dated 12.12.2014 in O.S. No. 179 of 2012.




                     _________
                     Page 1 of 14


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017


                                      For Petitioner       :         Mr.K.Suresh Kumar

                                     For Respondents      :          No appearance

                                                   JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the

learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai, dated 12.12.2014 made in

O.S. 179 of 2012.

2.The appellant is the first defendant in the suit; the plaintiffs filed the suit

for partition and separate possession of 11/13th share in the suit properties;

the properties were originally owned by one Veerappan Chettiar, who had

two wives; the plaintiffs 1 to 9 are the children of Veerappan Chettiar born

through his 1st wife Jayalakshmi; the plaintiffs 10 and 11 and defendants 1

and 2 are the children of Veerappan Chettiar born through his 2 nd wife

Kamalammal; Veerappan Chettiar died on 29.03.1999; Jayalakshmi died on

15.11.20109 and Kamalammal died on 21.07.2012; the 1st item of the suit

property was purchased by Veerappan Chettiar by virtue of the registered

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

sale deed, dated 04.09.1970 and the 2nd item was purchased through

unregistered sale deed, dated 30.06.1979; from the date of purchase of the

suit properties, Veerappan Chettiar was in possession and enjoyment of the

same; Veerappan Chettiar died intestate by leaving behind his 1st wife and

the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs; Jayalakshmi died

intestate on 15.11.2009 and Kamalammal died on 21.07.2012; as the legal

heirs of the deceased Veerappan Chettiar, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and

2 also became entitled to the suit properties; Kamalammal being the 2nd wife

got married to Veerappan Chettiar, while his marriage with his 1 st wife

Jayalakshmi was subsisting; even though Kamalammal is not entitled for

any share in any properties, because of the illegal marriage, her children are

entitled to the shares; the plaintiffs issued notice for partition on

20.10.2012; the defendants have received the notice and did not come

forward for division of properties; hence, the suit has been filed to divide

the suit properties into 13 equal shares and to allot 11/13th share to the

plaintiffs and pass a preliminary decree for partition.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

3.The 1st defendant has filed his written statement by stating that the

plaintiffs and defendants are the children born through Veerappan Chettiar

through his two wives; the 1st wife of Veerappan Chettiar is Kamalammal

and her younger sister Jayalakshmi is the 2nd wife of Veerappan Chettiar; the

said Kamalammal and his younger sister Jayalakshmi have jointly filed a

suit in O.S. No. 440 of 1968 before the District Munsif Court, Trichy for

management of the Temple after the death of Veerappan Chettiar and

obtained a decree; in the said case, it has been stated that, Kamalammal was

the wife of Veerappan Chettiar and Jayalakshmi was the sister of

Kamalammal and it will prove that, Kamalammal is the 1st wife of

Veerappan Chettiyar; but however, he married two wives even before the

year 1949; hence, both the marriages were valid and both the wives are

entitled to seek the shares; the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu

Succession Act are not applicable to this case; the Hindu Marriage Act and

the Hindu Succession Act were codified laws and came into effect from

1955; hence, the two wives of Veerappan Chettiar would be entitled to equal

shares and the plaintiffs 1 to 9 are entitled to their shares out of ½ share

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

allotted to their mother - Jayalakshmi and the plaintiffs 10 and 11 and

defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to their share out of ½ share allotted to their

mother Kamalammal; if the share is worked out on this basis, the defendants

are entitled to get ¼ out of ½ share of their mother, i.e., 1/8 share; hence, the

preliminary decree should be passed by allotting 1/8th share to each of the

defendants.

4.The 1st plaintiff has filed the reply statement stating that Kamalammal

married one Ramasamy Chettiar prior to her marriage with Veerappan

Chettiar; despite Jayalakshmi was her younger sister, she only married

Veerappan Chettiar first; Kamalammal had been to the house of the

Veerappan Chettiar just to maintain the children born through Jayalakshmi;

later, Veerappan Chettiar married Kamalammal as well; even as per the law

existed in the year 1949, the second marriage is illegal; so, no share can be

allotted to Kamalammal, though her children would get equal share with the

plaintiffs 1 to 9.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the

following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 11/13 shares each in the suit property?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his men and his agent in any way alienating or encumbering undivided 2/3 share over the suit schedule mentioned properties?

(iii) Whether the defendants are to pay the plaintiffs cost of the suit?

(iv) To what other relief, the parties are entitled to?

On 09.12.2014, Issue Nos.2 and 3 were deleted and the following additional

issue was framed:

1. Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to preliminary decree for partition of his 1/8th share in the suit properties?

6.During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were

examined as PW1 and PW2 and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On the side of

the defendants, one witness was examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

were marked. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge, considered

the evidence available on record and decreed the suit by allotting 11/13

share to the plaintiffs and 1/13 share to the 1st defendant and passed a

preliminary decree for partition to that effect. Aggrieved over the same, the

1st defendant has preferred the appeal.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his ground of appeal

was based on the decision rendered in AIR 1985 SC 1102. In the said

judgment, it is held that two widows of Hindu male have got joint shares in

the right of survivorship; the trial Judge has not properly discussed the

impact of the above decision and arrived at a wrong conclusion by

presuming that both wives of Veerappan Chettiar were not alive when

Veerappan Chettiar died; the learned trial Judge has not applied the law of

the facts of the case appropriately; the learned trial Judge allotted 1/13

shares to the 1st defendant instead of allotting 1/8 share. Hence, the Appeal

should be dismissed. However, the stand of the respondents before the trial

Court and other records are also taken up for consideration.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

Point for consideration:-

Whether the allotment of share is 1/13 to the 1st defendant and 11/13 to the plaintiffs by preliminary decree passed by the learned trial Judge is fair and proper?

8.The fact that both the plaintiffs and the defendants have derived title from

their deceased father Veerappan Chettiar is not in dispute. Originally the

properties belonged to late Veerappan Chettiar and there is no dispute on

that score also. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that Jayalakshmi is the 1st wife

and the Kamalammal is the 2nd wife, whereas, the 1st defendant has stated

that Kamalammal is the 1st wife and Jayalakshmi is the 2nd wife. However,

the learned trial Judge got convinced that Jayalakshmi is the 1st wife of the

deceased Veerappan Chettiar.

9.Since the marriage of Veerappan Chettiar with the 2nd wife had taken place

prior to the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it cannot be

considered that the second marriage is invalid, even though the 1st wife was

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

alive. Both Kamalammal and Jayalakshmi married to Veerappan Chettiyar

and their marriage is valid as per the law existed at that point of time,

irrespective who married him first.

10.The one and only point for consideration is that whether the widows of

the deceased Veerappan Chettiyar are entitled to ½ share each after his death

or whether the wives have equal share along with other children as the Class

I legal heirs. Admittedly, Veerappan Chettiyar died intestate and the

plaintiffs and the defendants claimed the right by way of inheritance. The

learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that both the wives of Veerappan

Chettiyar were not alive at the time when Veerappan Chettiyar died.

11.By taking into consideration to be of the existence of both the wives of

Veerappan Chettiar at the time he died, it has been seen whether the decision

reported in AIR 1985 SC 1102 and cited by the learned counsel for the

appellant would change their respective share from 1/13 to 1/8. On perusal

of the above judgment, it is seen that the male Hindu died in the year 1999

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

after the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The property being

the self-acquired property of the deceased Veerappan Chettiar, there is no

confusion in allotment of shares to his legal heirs irrespective of the fact,

whether the wives are alive or dead. The provisions set out under Sections

8, 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 have to be properly applied

while allotting the shares among the legal heirs of the deceased Veerappan

Chettiar who died intestate.

12.As per Section 8 of the Act, the property of Veerappan Chettiar's share

devolved upon the Class I legal heirs. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and the

defendants are being sons and daughters of the deceased Veerappan

Chettiar, they will fall under Class I legal heirs. As per Section 9 of the Act,

Class I legal heirs take simultaneously. As per Section 10 of the Act, the

intestate widows of the deceased Hindu would be in accordance with the

sub-section 1 of Section 10 of the Act. As per sub-section 1 of Section 10

of the Act, if there are more than one widows for the intestate, all shall take

one share jointly between themselves. The surviving sons and daughters and

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

the mother of the intestate shall take one share each in accordance with sub-

section 2 of Section 10 of the Act.

13.The property has not been divided any time before and this suit for

partition. This suit has been filed for the first time after the death of

Veerappan Chettiar and his two wives. Hence, there is no quarrel as to who

can inherit his properties except the plaintiffs and the defendants. The

plaintiffs and the defendants being Class I legal heirs of the deceased

Veerappan Chettiar, they are entitled to take equal shares among themselves.

The learned trial Judge has rightly applied the law despite recording a

wrong finding that the wives of Veerappan Chettiar were not alive at the

time of his death. But however, the apportionment of the share to the

parties equally has been done only in accordance with law in force. Hence, I

find no reason for interference.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

In the result, this Appeal Suit is dismissed and the judgment and decree in

O.S. No. 179 of 2017 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge,

Madurai, dated 12.12.2014 is hereby confirmed. However, there shall be no

order as to costs.

25.03.2022 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

vji

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

To

1. The learned V Additional District Judge, Madurai.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

R.N.MANJULA, J.

vji

A.S. (MD) No. 102 of 2017

25.03.2022

_________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis