Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Srinivasan & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Achammal & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P. No. 1015 of 2022
Decided On : 18-01-2024
JURISDICTION - REJECTION OF PLAINT - The court found that the rejection of the plaint by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge was without jurisdiction, as it was based on findings that should have been determined at trial. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural guidelines established in prior judgments, particularly regarding the rights of daughters to inherit equally under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, which influenced the decision to set aside the rejection order and direct the trial court to proceed with the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, being the sons, daughters, and widow of Munusamy Achari and Kandhachari, filed a suit for partition claiming ancestral properties. They contended that a sale made in 1982 was invalid and that they were entitled to a share as coparceners, including equal rights for daughters under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Sub-ordinate Judge's rejection of the plaint was without jurisdiction and violated established legal principles. The court noted that the judge incorrectly ruled that daughters were not entitled to equal shares, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma.
Issues: Whether the learned Sub-ordinate Judge had the jurisdiction to reject the plaint without numbering it, and whether the daughters were entitled to equal shares in the ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the plaint was improper as it preemptively addressed issues that should be resolved at trial. It reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights to inheritance regardless of the date of the father's death, as established in the Supreme Court's ruling.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the order rejecting the plaint was set aside, and the learned Sub-ordinate Judge was directed to number the suit and proceed in accordance with the law.
ORDER :
R. Subramanian, J.
[PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, against the rejection order dated 01.02.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Hosur in unnumbered O.S.Sr.No.957 of 2022 and to number the plaint within a time frame.]
The order under challenge in this revision is an order wholly without jurisdiction where, the learned Judge chose to reject the plaint even without numbering the same by rendering findings on vital issues that would arise after trial in the suit.
2. A suit for partition was laid by the petitioners, contending that the suit properties are ancestral properties belonging to the family of one Munusamy Achari and Kandhachari. The plaintiffs are the sons, daughters and widow of Munusamy Achari and Kandhachari. The defendants are alienees. In the plaint, it was averred that the properties belonged to the joint family and the sale made by Munusamy Achari and Kandhachari in the year 1982 is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs, who are entitled to a share as coparceners. The plaintiffs had claimed that they are entitled to 54/72 shares, since the daughters would also be entitled to equal share along with the sons, in view of the Act 39 of 2005.
3. The learned Trial Judge returned the plaint on 30.11.2021 raising the following queries:-
(2) E.C. as on date of the suit schedule properties to be filed.
(3) Death Certificates and LR certificates of Munusamy Achari & Kanda Achari to be filed.
(4) Documents to be need to show that suit property is the Ancestor properties of the plaintiffs.
(5) Document to be produced to show the possession of the plaintiffs from 1982 to till date.
(6) How the suit is maintainable against the P3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 Explained.
Hence Retd.
The one month.
4. The plaint was resubmitted with the following endorsements:-
(2) Death certificate of Munisamy Achari produced, it is reported Kandha Achari died long back unable to procure, there is no discrimination regarding legal representation's.
(3) The alleged suit property sale deed was prior to UDR survey scheme. Hence, UDR 'A' Register reflects Defendants name, if court deems fit at the time of trial, we will mark copy of SLR with leave at this Hon'ble Court.
(4) The plaintiffs are in actual and physical possession.
(5) Returned No.6 is bind by Act 39 of 2005 Hindu Succession Act. Hence suit is maintainable against P3 to P5 and P7 to P9. Hence re-submitted with returns complied.
5. Again on 20.01.2022, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge returned the plaint with the following endorsement.
(2) E.C. to be added in the list of Documents and C.F. to be paid.
Hence retd.
Time One Month.
6. The same was again represented on 28.01.2022. On the same day, the learned Sub-ordinate Judge directed the matter to be called on the open Court. She had heard the counsel on the virtual mode and has passed an order, rejecting the plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs 3, 4, 5 & 7 who are daughters are not entitled to equal share in view of the Act, 39 of 2005, since according to the learned Judge, the daughters would derive equal right only from the year 2006, therefore, they are not entitled to equal share. The learned Trial Judge also found that there is no proof to the effect that the suit properties are ancestral properties. It is this order of the learned Subordiante Judge is under challenge in this revision.
7. This Court had in Selvaraj Vs. Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Ltd., reported in (2021) 3 LW 677 laid down the guidelines as to when and how a plaint should be returned. This order of the learned Judge is in complete violation of the directions issued by this Court in the said judgment. In fact, the conclusion of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge that the daughters do not have equal share, militates against the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
The court established that the rejection of a plaint must adhere to procedural guidelines and that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, i....
In a suit for partition, amendment of pleadings is permissible even at a later stage when it does not alter the character of the suit and enables the court to fully adjudicate the dispute.
Hindu law does not recognize ancestral property claims through a female ascendant.
A granddaughter is entitled to seek partition of ancestral property, even during her father's lifetime, establishing daughters as coparceners under Hindu law.
A third-party purchaser lacks the standing to raise the plea of partial partition in a suit for partition among co-owners, as this right is reserved for the co-owners themselves.
The amended Hindu Succession Act entitles daughters to seek partition regardless of prior registered partitions, affirming their rights to joint family properties.
The court concluded that the issues of property nature and limitation are mixed law and fact, necessitating trial rather than dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
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
