Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
Krishnamani (died) & Others - Appellant
Versus
M.J. Indira & Others - Respondent
A.S. (MD) No. 154 of 2018 & Cros.Obj. (MD). No. 32 of 2021
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Partition - Ancestral Property - Registered Will - Central Act, 2005 - [Partition] - [Civil Procedure Code, Order 41 Rule 1, Order 41 Rule 2, Section 96] - The court discussed the ancestral property, the validity of a registered Will, and the application of the Central Act, 2005. The court held that the daughter is entitled to an equal share as a coparcener under the amended Act, 2005 and the Vineeth Sharma case. The court also found that the Will was not proved in the manner known to law and that the property should be divided equally among the coparceners.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, daughter of Ramalingaier, filed a suit for partition of ancestral property. The trial court passed a preliminary decree allotting 1/12th share to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, claiming entitlement to the entire property based on a registered Will executed by Ramalingaier.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff, as a coparcener under the Central Act, 2005, is entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property. The court also held that the Will was not proved in the manner known to law and that the property should be divided equally among the coparceners.
Issues: (i) Validity of the registered Will (ii) Entitlement to partition (iii) Application of the Central Act, 2005
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff, as a coparcener under the Central Act, 2005, is entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property. The court also found that the Will was not proved in the manner known to law and that the property should be divided equally among the coparceners.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was dismissed, and the Cross Objection was allowed. The court directed the trial court to initiate final decree proceedings and pass a final decree, dividing the property equally among the coparceners.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 r/w.Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018 made in O.S.No.169 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Court, Madurai.
Cross Objection is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2018 made in O.S.No.169 of 2014 on the file of I Additional District Court, Madurai.)
Common Judgment
1. The first respondent is the plaintiff. She filed a suit in O.S.No.169 of 2014 before the I Additional District Court, Madurai, against the appellants/defendants 1 to 10 and the respondents 2 to 10/defendants 11 to 19, for passing of preliminary decree for partition allotting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff in the suit property by metes and bounds and for costs.
2. The trial Court after trial, decreed the suit in part and a preliminary decree was passed allotting 1/12th share to the plaintiff in the suit property and given liberty to the plaintiff to take out final decree proceedings for actual division of the suit property. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendants 1 to 10 have filed the present appeal and the first respondent/plaintiff has filed the Cross Objection.
3. (i). The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiff is the daughter of Ramalingaier and Thulasiammal. Apart from the plaintiff, they have one son viz., Krishnamurthi and one daughter Mahalakshmi. Both of them are no more. The first defendant is the wife of deceased Krishnamurthi and the defendants 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters of the deceased Krishnamurthi. The 8th defendant is the husband of the deceased Devika, who is the daughter of the first defendant. The 9th and 10th defendants are the sons of deceased daughter Mahalakshmi. The 16th defendant is the husband of one Vijayalakshmi, who is the daughter of Late Mahalakshmi and 17th to 19th defendants are the son and daughters of the deceased Vijayalakshmi.
3(ii). The suit property is the ancestral property and the same was allotted to Ramalingaier, as per the registered partition deed, dated 27.09.1950. Tmt. Thulasiammal predeceased Ramalingaier. Ramalingaier died intestate during 1988. After his demise, the suit property was jointly enjoyed in common by the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff so many times requested to give her 1/3rd share. But, the defendants evaded from partition. Hence, the plaintiff has sent a legal notice on 16.06.2014, claiming her 1/3rd share. The defendants 11 to 15 sent their reply stating that they also have right in the suit property. Since the suit property is the undivided joint family property, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share. During the pendency of the suit, the 7th defendant died as a spinster and her mother the 1st defendant alone is her legal heir. Hence, the suit is filed for partition.
4. The written statement filed by the defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, which was adopted by the defendants 3, 6, 8 to 10, reads as follows:
The plaintiff is the daughter of Late Ramalingaier was admitted. The suit property is the ancestral property of Late Ramalingaier. During partition on 27.09.1950, the 1st defendant's husband viz., Krishnamurthi alone was born. Therefore, Ramalingaier and Krishnamurthi alone become the absolute owners of the property. The plaintiff got married in the year 1955 and another daughter Mahalakshmi got married in the year 1948. The said Mahalakshmi died prior to 1973. Ramalingaier's wife Thulasiammal died on 24.06.1977. After the death of Thulasiammal, Ramalingaier gave 5 sovereigns of jewels and Rs.20,000/- cash to the plaintiff and the heirs of Mahalakshmi. Ramalingaier was in a sound and disposing state of mind executed a registered Will dated 22.02.1988 in respect of his undivided ½ share in the suit property and his other property in Dindigul. The plaintiff and all the defendants known the existence of the said Will and it was acted upon. The plaintiff and the defendants 11 to
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a daughter as a coparcener under the Central Act, 2005, and the requirement to prove a Will in the manner known to law.
Daughters' rights as equal to sons under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.
The validity of an unregistered Will must comply with the requirements of the Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act. Additionally, non-testamentary instruments must be registered under the Regis....
Court establishes the validity of deeds involved in partition disputes and clarifies share entitlements based on legal limitations of property transfers following inheritance laws.
The court established the principle that under the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1/1990, a daughter is entitled to her share in ancestral property, and any disposition or alienation without her consent is....
Point of law: There is no dispute that even under Ex.A-4, the plaintiff who was a minor at the relevant time, was made eo nomine party. In such a circumstance, as rightly contended, he has to pray fo....
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
