Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
Kannammal (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Nagammal (Died) – Respondent
A.S. No. 1255 of 2015
Decided On : 20-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : A.L. Gandhimathi, S. Meenakshi.
For the Respondents: A.K. Sriram, S. Thangavel, M. Muthusamy.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 did not apply to agricultural lands in Tamil Nadu until after the death of the deceased, and the widow's possession did not enlarge into absolute right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Headnote:
Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act - Succession Rights - 1937 Act, 1956 Act - [Plaintiffs' claim under 1937 Act and 1956 Act] - [1937 Act, 1956 Act, Section 14(1)] - The court discussed the applicability of the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to agricultural lands in the State of Tamil Nadu. The court interpreted the legal provisions and held that the 1937 Act did not apply to agricultural lands until after the death of the deceased, and the widow's possession did not enlarge into absolute right under Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for cancelling a Partition Deed and claiming a share in the suit properties as legal heirs of Smt. Nallammal, wife of late Sengaliappa Gounder, under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 and Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Trial Court held against the plaintiffs, dismissing the suit in its entirety.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any right through their mother under the 1937 Act and 1956 Act, as the succession opened before the 1937 Act was extended to agricultural lands in Tamil Nadu. The court also held that the widow's possession did not enlarge into absolute right under Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiffs' entitlement to claim right as legal heirs under the 1937 Act and 1956 Act, the applicability of the 1937 Act to agricultural lands in Tamil Nadu, and the date of death of Sengaliappa Gounder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the legal provisions of the 1937 Act and 1956 Act, and held that the 1937 Act did not apply to agricultural lands until after the death of the deceased, and the widow's possession did not enlarge into absolute right under Section 14(1) of the 1956 Act.
Final Decision: The Appeal Suit was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 in O.S. No. 734/2011 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

1. Plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 734/2011 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants in the above appeal.

2. The suit property originally belongs to one Sengaliappa Gounder son of Kuppanda Gounder. One Nallammal is the wife of late Sengaliappa Gounder and Subbaiya Gounder, Krishnasamy Gounder, Kannammal, Nagammal and Rangammal are the sons and daughters of Sengaliappa Gounder. Kannammal is the 1st plaintiff. Plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the husband, son and daughters of the deceased Rangammal/one of the daughters of late Sengaliappa Gounder. The 1st defendant Nagammal is also one of the daughters of late Sengaliappa Gounder. Defendants 2 to 5 in the suit are the legal heirs of the deceased Subbaiya Gounder. The 6th defendant is the second son of Sengaliappa Gounder.

3. During pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant Kannammal died and therefore, appellants 7 to 15 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased/1st appellant. Similarly, respondents 1, 2 and 6, namely, Nagammal, Thirumoorthy and Krishnasamy died and their legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 8 to 17.

4. The appellants filed the suit in O.S. No. 734/2011 for cancelling the Partition Deed dated 24.06.2009 registered as Doc. No. 7919/2009 executed between defendants 2 to 4 and 6 and for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs’ 2/5th share in all the suit properties.

5. It is admitted by the plaintiffs themselves that the suit properties are Punja agricultural lands and that the lands originally belonged to one Sengaliappa Gounder. It is their case that the said Sengaliappa Gounder died intestate in the year 1958 leaving behind his wife Tmt. Nallammal, sons by name Subbaiya Gounder and Krishnasamy Gounder and daughters by name Nagammal, the 1st defendant herein, Kannammal, the 1st plaintiff and Rangammal Stating that the suit properties are in the joint possession and enjoyment of Sengaliappa Gounder and his two sons and daughters, it is contended that the daughters are entitled to 1/5th share each. Though the plaintiffs admitted the Partition Deed dated 24.06.2009 in respect of the suit properties, it is contended by the plaintiffs that the said partition is not binding on the plaintiffs and it is void. It is further contended that the partition was registered by the 7th defendant without verifying the parent documents and hence, the 7th defendant is bound to cancel the document, namely, Partition Deed dated 24.06.2009.

6. The suit was resisted by the 6th defendant by filing a written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 and 4. Defendants 3 and 4 also filed a written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 2 and 6. 5th defendant also filed a written statement claiming 1/20th share. Defendants denied the specific allegations levelled against them by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The defendants inter alia contended that the suit properties are purchased by Sengaliappa Gounder, the father by way of a registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 1900/1938 dated 14.11.1938 from one Appachi Gounder. It is further stated that against the father Sengaliappa Gounder, a suit came to be filed by one Muruganantha Gounder in O.S. No. 79/1946 challenging the said Sale Deed dated 14.11.1938 and the said suit was dismissed by the District Munsif Court at Tiruppur on 15.09.1947. Referring to the fact that his father Sengaliappa Gounder died during pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were brought on record on the application filed in the year 1946, it is specifically contended that succession opened in the year 1946 and not as claimed by plaintiffs in the plaint. It is the specific case of 6th defendant in the written statement that after the demise of