The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of daughters to claim coparcenary rights under the Mitakshara law and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 09.03.2016 made in A.S.No.44 of 2015 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranipet in confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 made in O.S.No.119 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Walajapet, Vellore District.)

1. The Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 1/5 th share in the suit property and also sought for declaration of the sale deed dated 15.06.2009 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 5th defendant as null and void.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property formed part of a larger extent of property which are ancestral in nature. It is stated that these properties were held by the great grand father Thalaivirichan Reddy, who had three sons namely Chinnasamy Reddy, Kathavarayan Reddy and Chinnappa Reddy. On the demise of Thalaivirichan Reddy, his three sons inherited the property. One of the son Kathavaraya Reddy had three sons Munirathinam, Shanmugam and Mani. According to the plaintiff, these three sons were jointly enjoying the property on the demise of Kathavaraya Reddy. The Plaintiff claims that the 1st defendant father and defendants 2 to 4 who are the sisters of the plaintiff are each entitled for 1/5th share in the suit property.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant went ahead and sold an extent of 36 cents in favour of the 5th defendant through a sale deed dated 15.06.2009 and according to the plaintiff, this sale deed is null and void and not binding on the other sharers. That apart, the 1st defendant was not coming forward to allot the shares to the other legal heirs and hence, the suit came to be filed seeking for the reliefs stated supra.

5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement. He took a stand that the three sons of Kathavaraya reddy had a family arrangement and each was alloted specific portion to an extent of 1.07 acres. According to the 1st defendant, he is the absolute owner of the property measuring an extent of 1.07 acres and during his life time, the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the property. Therefore, the 1st defendant justified the sale of a portion of the property in favour of the 5th defendant, who is none other than the brother of the 1st defendant. Accordingly, the 1st defendant has sought for the dismissal of the suit. This written statement was adopted by defendants 2 and 5.

6. Both the Courts below on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence concurrently held against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

7. When the matter came up for hearing on 29.03.2022, this Court passed the following order:-

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 25.03.2022, this Court wanted the learned counsel for the appellant to clarify as to the nature of the property in the hands of the first defendant, who is the father of the plaintiff. This is in view of the fact that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the property, in the hands of the first defendant, is an exclusive property and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to claim a share during the life time of the first defendant. The learned counsel for the appellant, by bringing to the notice of this Court, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arshnoor Singh Vs. Harpal Jaur reported in 2019 (5) CTC 110, submitted that the property originally belonged to Thalaivirichan Reddy, who died about 65 years back and at that point of time, the Mitakshara Law was in force and what was inherited by Kathavarayan Reddy, one of the sons of Thalaivirichan Reddy, will also be construed as a joint family property as per this Judgment. If it is construed to