Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
P.Eswaramoorthy - Appellants
Vs.
Kumudham - Respondents
A.S.No.286 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.5062 of 2016
Decided On : 01-12-2022
Ancestral Property - Partition - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - [PROPERTY] - [Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956] - The judgment and decree granted a preliminary decree for partition in favor of the second plaintiff. The court held that the item No.1 and item No.2 of the suit properties are ancestral properties and the minor plaintiff is entitled to a share in both properties. The purchasers of item No.2 were entitled to protection to the extent of the share of the vendor, the first defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for partition of ancestral properties. The Trial Court held that both items of the suit properties are ancestral and granted a preliminary decree for partition in favor of the second plaintiff. The defendants 4 and 5 appealed against the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found that both items of the suit properties are ancestral and held that the minor plaintiff is entitled to a share in both properties. The purchasers of item No.2 were entitled to protection to the extent of the share of the vendor, the first defendant.
Issues: The issues included whether the properties were ancestral, whether the suit was collusive, and whether the purchasers were bonafide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the properties were ancestral and the minor plaintiff was entitled to a share. The purchasers were entitled to protection to the extent of the share of the vendor.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was partly allowed, modifying the judgment and decree to grant the second plaintiff a 1/2 share in item No.2 of the suit properties and validating the purchase of the defendants 4 and 5 for the remaining 1/2 share. The decree was confirmed in all other aspects.
JUDGMENT :
A. The Appeal Suit :
This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 08.10.2015 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode, in O.S.No.18 of 2014, in and by which, the suit, filed by the plaintiffs for partition in respect of two items of the suit properties, was allowed and a preliminary decree granting 2/6th share to the second plaintiff in the item No.1 of the suit properties and 1/2 share in the item No.2 of the suit properties, besides, directing the first defendant to pay maintenance of a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the first plaintiff and also creating a charge over the share of the first defendant for regular payment of the maintenance to the first plaintiff and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any manner alienating or encumbering the suit properties till final partition is effected.
2. The defendants 4 and 5, who are the purchasers of the item No.2 of the suit schedule property are on appeal before this Court inasmuch as the impugned judgment and decree grants a preliminary decree of 1/2 share in the item No.2 of the suit properties in favour of the second plaintiff.
B. The Plaint :
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the Appeal Suit are that the first plaintiff namely, Kumudham, is the wife of one Arjunan. The second plaintiff namely, minor Deepika, represented by her mother, Kumudham, is the daughter of Arjunan. The said Arjunan is the first defendant in the suit. The said Arjunan was born to one Nachimuthu Goundar and Sellammal. Nachimuthu Goundar had since passed away and Sellammal is the second defendant in the suit. Arjunan has got a sister by name Malleeswari, who is the third defendant in the suit. The fourth defendant, P.Eswaramoorthy and the fifth defendant, E.Palaniammal, are the persons who purchased the item No.2 of the suit properties by a registered sale deed, dated 30.10.2013 from the first defendant, Arjunan.
4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that item No.1 of the schedule mentioned properties is the ancestral property and the first defendant-s father, Nachimuthu Goundar was allotted the same under a registered partition deed, dated 09.11.1966. The same was enjoyed jointly by the said Nachimuthu Goundar and his son Arjunan and as such is an ancestral property. While so, on 08.03.2002, a portion of the ancestral property was sold by the first defendant, Arjunan, the second defendant, Sellammal and the third defendant, Malleeswari and out of the said funds, another property was purchased which is described as item No.2 of schedule properties in the plaint. The property was purchased a day prior to the sale i.e., on 07.03.2002. While so, in or about the year 2010, the relationship between the first plaintiff-wife and the first defendant-husband got strained and the plaintiff and her daughter/the second plaintiff were sent out of the house. In order to leave the first plaintiff and the minor daughter in lurch, the first defendant had sold the property to the defendants 4 and 5. Hence the suit.
C. The Written Statement :
5. The suit was not contested by the first defendant, Arjunan, the second defendant, Sellammal and the third defendant, Malleeswari. Only the purchasers of the schedule-II property namely, P.Eswaramoorthy and E.Palaniammal contested the suit by filing a written statement. Their case is that, even though a dispute is alleged between the husband and wife, no petition before Court is filed and pending. Further, it is their case that when the property is allotted to Nachimuthu Goundar by virtue of the registered partition deed, it was his self-acquired property and after his life time, Arjunan inherited the same along with Sellammal and Malleeswari under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, item No.1 of the schedule properties cannot be termed as ancestral properties. In any event, the title to the item No.2 of the schedule properties stands in the name of Arjunan alone, he having
AI
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
Ancestral properties must be proven to remain joint family properties post-partition; otherwise, they are deemed separate and not subject to partition claims.
Daughters are coparceners by birth under the amended Hindu Succession Act, entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in establishing the nature of the suit property and the entitlement to seek relief by way of partition, as well as the i....
The absence of evidence proving the joint family status of properties allows a presumption that they are individual assets; thus, plaintiffs' claim for partition is dismissed.
Jointly held family properties can be classified as ancestral, particularly when the purchase is funded by the joint family's income, despite claims of individual contribution.
Unmarried daughters are recognized as coparceners in ancestral properties under the amended Hindu Succession Act, leading to equal rights in joint family assets.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
