2012 Supreme(Mad) 3956

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. BANUMATHI & R. SUBBIAH, JJ.
P. Vijayalakshmi
Versus
P. Susheela & Others
A.S. NO. 914 of 2008
Decided On : 27-09-2012

Ratios
a. All the properties inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father are his ancestral properties.
b. On the death of a Hindu male after effecting partition of his coparcenary properties, his share in the coparcenary properties devolve on his class 1 legal heirs by succession.
c. On the death of a coparcener before effecting partition, his interest in the coparcenary properties devolve by survivorship.
d. By virtue of amendment to Section 6, a daughter of a coparcener in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law now becomes a coparcener in her own right and thus enjoys rights equal to those hitherto enjoyed by a son of a coparcener.

Headnote:(A)Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956)-Sec.6- Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005(39 of 2005)-Sec.6-Hindu law-Succession-Coparcenary property-Partition-Daughter-Marriage-Appellant daughter had married in the year 1981 and her father had died in the year 2001-On the death of her father, the appellant/daughter had claimed partition in the properties by stating that she was having equal share-Respondent/son had contended that the properties were inherited by his father from his ancestors and so they were coparcenary properties and before his death partition took place and the plaintiff/daughter had married in the year 1981 and so she could claim share only in the property allotted to the share of his father and not in whole properties-When the trial Court had accepted the stand of the son, the daughter had preferred appeal-Parties stood by their stands-Held, as the partition had taken place before the death of the father and the plaintiff had also married in the year 1981, she could claim share only in the properties allotted to the share of the father-Decree under challenge was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

        (B)Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956)-Sec.6-Hindu law-Succession-Coparcenary property-All the properties inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father are his ancestral properties.

        All the properties inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father are his ancestral properties. If a person has no son, son’s son or son’s son’s son in existence at the time when he inherits the property, then only he holds the property as absolute owner thereof. However, if a male has son, son’s son or son’s son’s son in existence at the time of his inheritance or they were born to him subsequently, they become entitled to an interest in it by the mere fact of their birth in the family. When the suit properties were allotted to Purushotham Chettiar under Ex.A2-partition deed and when Purushotham Chettiar had son (2nd Defendant), Purushotham Chettiar cannot claim to hold the property as absolute owner. Plaintiff is not right in contending that the suit properties were absolute properties of Purushotham Chettiar, entitling the Plaintiff to claim 1/3rd share on par with the 2nd Defendant. Para 13

        (C)Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956)-Sec.6-Hindu law-Succession-Coparcenary property-Partition-Survivorship-On the death of a Hindu male after effecting partition of his coparcenary properties, his share in the coparcenary properties devolve on his class 1 legal heirs by succession-On the death of a coparcener before effecting partition, his interest in the coparcenary properties devolve by survivorship.

        Prior to Amendment Act 39 of 2005, as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, on the death of male member of a Hindu family belonging to Mitakshara coparcenary, property devolves by survivorship to the surviving members of the coparcenary. Proviso to sub-section (b) confers rights upon female members i.e. if deceased coparcener died leaving female heirs in Class I heirs, the interest of the coparcenary in the Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve upon Class I heirs by testamentary or intestate succession and not by survivorship. Plaintiff being a daughter of Purushotham Chettiar is a Class I heir. Since Plaintiff traces her right through her father as Class I heir of first schedule, when Purushotham Chettiar died intestate in 2001, as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act then in existence, Plaintiff had a right in the family properties i.e. 1/3rd share from out of half share of Purushotham Chettiar. Para 15

        (D)Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956)-Sec.6- Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005(39 of 2005)-Sec.6-Hindu law-Succession-Coparcenary property-Partition-Daughter-By virtue of amendment to Section 6, a daughter of a coparcener in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law now becomes a coparcener in her own right and thus enjoys rights equal to those hitherto enjoyed by a son of a coparcener.

        By virtue of amendment to Section 6, a daughter of a coparcener in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law now becomes a coparcener in her own right and thus enjoys rights equal to those hitherto enjoyed by a son of a coparcener. Now a daughter stands on par with son has a right to seek partition of coparcenary property. Para 21