BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.Jayachandran, J.
Radha, W/o. Ravi @ Shanmugam - Appellants
Vs.
Muthiah Vathiyar (Died) & Ors. - Respondent
C.M.A.(MD)No.796 of 2008
Decided On : 21-12-2022
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL - Partition Suit - Order XLI Rules 23, 23A and 25 of C.P.C. - Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Central Amendment Act 39 of 2005
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming their share in the suit schedule properties. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree in their favor. The first defendant appealed, and pending the appeal, an application was filed to receive an additional document, the Will dated 23.08.1975, claimed to have been executed by Nallakannu Vathiyar. The lower Appellate Court allowed the application and remanded the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to frame additional issues and retry the suit. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed challenging the lower Appellate Court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the lower Appellate Court erred in allowing the application to receive the additional document and in remanding the matter back to the trial Court. The Court held that the lower Appellate Court's decision was not sustainable as the Central Amendment Act 39 of 2005 applied to the pending suits, and the properties divested by way of sale deeds prior to the amendment were not available for partition. The Court set aside the lower Appellate Court's judgment and upheld the trial Court's judgment and decree, confirming the plaintiffs' share in the suit schedule property.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Will dated 23.08.1975, the plea of partial partition, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs under the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Central Amendment Act 39 of 2005 applied to the pending suits, and the properties divested by way of sale deeds prior to the amendment were not available for partition. The Court also found that the lower Appellate Court erred in allowing the application to receive the additional document and in remanding the matter back to the trial Court.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the lower Appellate Court's judgment and upheld the trial Court's judgment and decree, confirming the plaintiffs' share in the suit schedule property.
JUDGMENT :
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.18 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Shencottah, against the judgment passed by the Appellate Court setting aside the trial Court judgment and decree, allowing the application to receive additional document and remanding back to the trial Court with direction to frame additional issue and try the suit afresh.
2. The suit for partition was allowed by the trial Court and preliminary decree was passed declaring the plaintiffs, Tmt.Radha and Tmt.Saraswathi, are entitled for 10/72 share each in the suit schedule properties. The said judgment and decree, dated 25.03.2004, came to be challenged by Muthiah Vathiyar, the first defendant.
3. Pending Appeal, the said Muthiah Vathiyar died. Hence, his legal representatives were brought on record and others, who subsequently derived interest in the suit schedule property were also arrayed as respondents.
4. Before adverting to the merits of the arguments submitted by the learned counsels, regarding the circumstances under which the Appellate Court exercised its power of remand under Order XLI Rules 23, 23A and 25 of C.P.C. and the law governing partition of coparcenary property among the first class heirs of a Hindu male died intestate in view of the amendment of the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it is necessary to understand the factual background of this case. Hence, the facts are recapitulated in a nutshell as below.
(ii) After the demise of the said Sami Vathiyar, his property was inherited by his sole son Nallakannu Vathiyar and was in his possession and enjoyment till his lifetime. The said Nallakannu Vathiyar died on 11.09.1975, leaving behind his wife namely, Janaki Ammal, three sons, who are the defendants 1 to 3 and six daughters, who are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 4 to 7.
(iii) In the plaint filed by two of the daughters of Nallakannu Vathiyar, it was alleged that the defendants 1 to 3, who are the sons of Nallakannu Vathiyar, after the demise of Nallakannu Vathiyar, did not take care of their mother and sisters. The marriages of the plaintiffs and the defendants 6 and 7 were conducted by their mother Janaki Ammal at her expense. Though request was made to the defendants 1 to 3 to divide the joint family property and allot the respective shares in the land and building, the defendants 1 to 3 were evading to effect partition. Contrarily, the first defendant has sold the house and 1 1/2 cents of land abutting to the house to the defendants 8 and 9 on 26.07.1999. The said sale is invalid and it was not alienated for the welfare of the family members enjoying the property jointly.
(iv) The defendants 1 and 3 claim that their father Nallakannu Vathiyar had executed a Will in their favour. This is untrue and even if it is so, the execution of the Will is surrounded with suspicion since Nallakannu Vathiyar was not keeping good health and mental state for about six months prior to his death. Hence, the voluntary execution of the alleged Will is doubtful.
(v) The first defendant, Muthiah Vathiyar, who is the first appellant in the first Appellate Court, in his written statement, has pleaded that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of Nallakannu Vathiyar, in respect of which, he has executed a Will, dated 23.08.1975 and got it registered. The said Will was executed in a good state of mind, voluntarily without any external influence. After the demise of Nallakannu Vathiyar on 11.09.1975, the Will has come into effect and acted upon. As per
P.Purushottam Reddy and Others vs. Pratap Steels Ltd. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 686
J.Balaji Singh vs. Diwakar Cole and others reported in AIR 2017 SC 2402 : 2017 (14) SCC 207
Narayanan vs. Kumaran and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 26
The Central Amendment Act 39 of 2005 applied to the pending suits, and the properties divested by way of sale deeds prior to the amendment were not available for partition.
Daughters have equal rights and shares in ancestral joint family properties under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The judgment establishes the principle that the coparcenary rights of daughters in ancestral property are determined by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act No.1 of 1990 and the Hindu Succession (Ame....
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act establishes that daughters are coparceners with equal rights in ancestral property, and oral partitions are not sufficient without formal docume....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.