Madras High Court
Sasikala vs S.G.Rangasamy on 22 December, 2023
S.A.No.646 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.No.646 of 2017
and
CMP.No.15981 of 2017
Sasikala ...Appellant
Vs.
1.S.G.Rangasamy
2.Saraswathi (Died)
3.Savithiri
4. Deepa ... Respondents
(R2-Died, R4 is brought on record
as LR of the deceased R2 vide
Court order dated 22.11.2023 made
in CMP.Nos.25078/2023 in
SA.No.646/2017)
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2016 in A.S.No.23 of
2016 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore,
reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2005 in OS.No.1187 of 1999
on the file of the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/14
S.A.No.646 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.C.R.Prasanan
For Respondents : Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan
for Mr.S.Natarajan for R1 & R3
R2- Died
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. She filed a suit seeking
partition of 1/3rd share in the suit property. The suit was decreed in favour of
the appellant by granting 4/9th share in the suit property by taking into
consideration, increase in the share due to the death of the first defendant
pending suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein preferred an
appeal. The first Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the
decree for partition by granting appellant 1/3rd share in the item Nos.1 & 3 of
the suit properties. The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed in respect of
the second item of the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is
before this Court.
2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the deceased first defendant
was his father. The third defendant was her sister and the fourth defendant was
her mother. The second defendant was son-in-law of first defendant and
husband of the deceased second respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. It was claimed by the appellant that the suit properties were
ancestral properties of the first defendant. Therefore, the appellant, her
deceased father/first defendant and her sister/third defendant were entitled to
1/3rd share in the suit properties. It was also further averred that the first
defendant at the instigation of the second defendant on 05.12.1997 without
any valid consideration created a bogus sale deed and the same was not
binding on her, insofar as her share in the suit property. On these pleadings,
she sought decree of 1/3rd share.
4. The respondents/defendants filed a written statement claiming
that item Nos.1 & 3 absolutely belonged to the first defendant and item No.2
absolutely belonged to the second defendant. It was their case that the item 1
was originally purchased by the first defendant's grand father Attiyanna
Gowder on 02.09.1885 and after death of Attiyanna Gowder, his son one
Onnamara Gowder/father of the first defendant got the same as absolute
owner. The said Onnamara Gowder died 65 years back and on his death the
property was inherited by the first defendant as absolute owner. Therefore,
item 1 of the suit property was the absolute property of the first defendant. It
was also claimed that item Nos.2 & 3 were Natham Poramboke land and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
first defendant's father Onnamara Gowder occupied the same and after his
death, the first defendant continued to occupy the same and put up the
superstructure. The first defendant who resided in the house in item No.3
obtained patta in his name. Therefore, item No.3 had also been treated as his
own property by virtue of patta obtained by him.
5. As far as, item No.2 is concerned, it was contended by the
respondent that item No.2 was occupied by the first defendant as exclusive
owner and he sold the said property in favour of the second defendant on
15.09.1997 and by virtue of said sale deed, the second defendant had become
exclusive owner of item No.2. Therefore, by denying the claim of the appellant
that the suit properties were ancestral property, the respondents/defendants
sought for dismissal of the suit.
6. Before the trial Court, the appellant was examined as PW1 and
two other independent witnesses were examined as PW2 & PW3. On behalf of
the appellant, 9 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. The second
defendant and third defendant were examined as DW1 & DW2 and 10
documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B10.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit properties
were ancestral properties and hence, the appellant was entitled to 4/9th share
after death of first defendant pending suit and accordingly, granted a
preliminary decree for partition. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents
preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional
District Judge, Coimbatore.
8. The first Appellate Court came to a finding that after the death
of first defendant's father Onnamara Gowder, the first defendant succeeded to
the property of Onnamara Gowder as his sole heir and hence, the same should
be treated as separate property. Therefore, the First Appellate Court granted a
decree for 1/3rd share in respect of item Nos.1 & 3 in favour of the appellant as
class-1 heir of first defendant. As far as the item No.2 is concerned since the
first defendant sold the same during his life time, the suit was dismissed in
respect of item No.2. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff
has come up with this Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following
substantial questions of law:
“a) Whether in law the lower Appellate Court
erred in not granting a share in the father's share in the
suit item Nos.1 to 3 especially when items Nos.1 & 3
remained undivided without any alienation and also on
the ground and that the alienation of item No.2 of the
suit properties made under Ex.A3 does not bind the
plaintiff/appellant?
b) Whether in law the lower Appellate Court erred
in overlooking that the very declaration of the item No.2
of the suit property as ancestral property in Ex.A3 by the
1st defendant Kartha who is competent to declare would
determine the character as held in the judgment reported
in ILR 24 Mad 829?
c) Whether in law the lower Appellate Court erred
in overlooking that the 2nd defendant/1st respondent who
is the purchaser under Ex.A3 is estopped by estoppel by
document from contending that the property is the
separate property of the first defendant besides bound by
the recitals “Ancestral Property” in Ex.A2 under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
92 of the Evidence Act?
d) Whether in law the Lower Appellate Court erred
in misreading the Sections 6 and 8 of Hindu Succession
Act and as per Mitakshara Law, when acquisition of
interest in coparcenary remained in the hands of a single
person though it be inherited, it could be treated as
separate property and once a son is born the concept of
the property being a coparcenary property is revived,
which would also apply equally to the daughter, after the
introduction of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu
Amendment) Act, 1989, as laid down in the dictum
reported in 2006 (8) SCC 581 and 2013 (9) SCC 419?”
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
defendants in the written statement clearly admitted the first item was the
ancestral property of the family and the first defendant's father Onnamara
Gowder died 65 years back. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that on death of Onnamara Gowder, the first
defendant would have got the property by surveyorship and the moment the
appellant and third respondent had born to the deceased first defendant, they
acquired share in the property by birth. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/9th share in the suit property. The learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the Courts below failed to see that the first defendant's father
Onnamara Gowder died prior to 65 years back and at that time, the Section 8
of Hindu Succession Act, never came in to operation.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents by taking this Court
to the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court submitted that after death
of Onnamara Gowder, the property was inherited by the first defendant as his
heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Once there is an intervention
of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property will loss its coparcenary
character and it has to be treated as a separate property. The learned counsel
for the respondents submitted that the First Appellate Court rightly came to the
conclusion that the suit property was separate property of the first defendant
and granted a preliminary decree for 1/3rd share in favour of the appellant with
regard to item Nos.1 & 3 of the suit property.
12. As far as second item is concerned, the learned counsel for
the respondents submitted that the first defendant sold the same during his life
time and hence the appellant is not entitled to any share in the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. The appellant came to the Court with specific pleadings that
the suit properties were ancestral properties. In the written statement filed by
the defendants it was clearly admitted that item No.1 of the suit property was
purchased by the first defendant's grand father Attiyanna Gowder under
Ex.B10, which would suggest that Attiyanna Gowder purchased item No.1 of
the property in the year 1885. Therefore, there is no doubt with regard to the
fact that item No.1 was an ancestral property. In the written statement filed on
09.11.2000, it was also admitted by the defendants that the first defendant's
father Onnamara Gowder died 65 years back. In that case Onnamara Gowder
would have died in the year 1935. Therefore, from the admission of the
respondents in the written statement, it is clear that the father of the first
defendant died prior to the coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
In such case, the first defendant would have got the property by surveyorship
under old Hindu law and not by operation of Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act 1956. When there is no intervention of Section 8 of the Act, the
property inherited by sole coparcener will be treated as his separate property
till birth of his son (now daughters also). The moment a son or daughter is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
born again it will acquire character of coparcenary property. The flouting
nature of coparcenary property is very well explained in Sivaramakrishnan
Vs. Kaveri Ammal and Ors, reported in AIR 1955 Mad 705. After 2005
amendment to Hindu Succession Act, son or daughter will acquire birth right
in the property inherited by their father (by way of survivorship) as a sole
coparcener. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff and the third respondent/third
defendant are entitled to 1/3rd share in item No.1 of the suit property as
coparceners. Now subsequent to the filing of the suit, the first respondent died
leaving behind the appellant, the third defendant and fourth respondent as
class-I heir. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to 4/9th share in the suit item
No.1 and to that extent the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate
Court is liable to be modified.
14. As far as item Nos.2 & 3 are concerned, it was claimed by the
defendants that the said property was occupied by the first defendant's father
Onnamara Gowder and later on, after his death, the first defendant continued
to occupy the same and acquired patta in his name. Therefore, it should be
treated as his own property. However, in the sale deed executed by the first
defendant in favour of second defendant under Ex.A3, the suit item No.2 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
described as ancestral property. It was also recited in that document that since
the properties were ancestral properties, the title documents were not available
with the first defendant. When the sale deed Ex.A3 was executed by the
deceased first defendant in favour of the first respondent/second defendant, the
deceased first defendant himself admitted the character of item No.2 of the
properties are ancestral properties. The first Appellate Court ought not to have
ignored the same and arrived at a conclusion that the said item of property was
self acquired property of the first defendant. The first respondent/second
defendant, who purchased the suit property from deceased first defendant
under Ex.A3, by accepting recital with regard to ancestral character of property
covered under the said document cannot turn around and contend it was self
acquired property of his vendor. Hence, Ex.A3 is valid only to the extent of
1/3rd share of deceased first defendant and it will not affect 1/3 rd share of
appellant, which she acquired by birth. Therefore, on the strength of Ex.A3,
this Court comes to the conclusion that item No.2 is also ancestral property
and hence, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the item No.2 of
the suit property. Further, the first defendant sold his interest (1/3rd share) in
item No.2 in favour of the second defendant during his life time. Hence, the
decree passed by the first Appellate Court in dismissing the suit in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
item 2 is liable to be set aside by holding that the appellant is entitled to 1/3 rd
share in the suit item No.2 of the suit property. As far as item No.3 is
concerned, the appellant/plaintiff failed to lead any prima facie evidence to
show that it is the ancestral property of the family. Therefore, the conclusion
reached by the first Appellate Court that the third item was separate property
of first defendant is upheld.
15. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that after the sale by the first defendant in favour of the second
defendant under Ex.A3, the second defendant put up a house by spending
huge amount and he is residing in the said house along with third defendant. It
is made clear that the right of equity shall be determined at the final decree
proceedings.
16. In view of the discussions made earlier, all the substantial
questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and the appellant is
entitled to 4/9th share in the item No.1 and 1/3rd share in the item No.2.
17. a) In the result, the Second Appeal is partly allowed by setting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, in so far as item
Nos.1 & 2 are concerned.
b) A preliminary decree for partition is passed in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff in respect of her 4/9th share in the item No.1 and 1/3rd share
in the item No.2.
c) The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in
respect of item No.3 is confirmed.
d) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.12.2023
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation Case : Yes
dna
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dna
To
1.The IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore,.
2.The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.
and
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
