Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
Pongiannan - Appellant
Versus
Nanjayaal @ Nanjakkal (died) and ors. – Respondents
S.A.No. 321 of 2017
Decided On : 18-10-2023
PARTITION - Hindu Succession Act - Sections 6, 8 - The court interpreted Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing the equal rights of daughters in ancestral properties. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the property based on the notional partition and the rights of heirs under the Act, which influenced the decision to uphold the appellate court's ruling granting the plaintiff a 31/56 share.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed a 6/7 share in the suit properties, asserting they belonged to her father, Chinaa Gounder. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court granted her a 31/56 share based on additional evidence showing the properties were ancestral. The defendant, who purchased the properties from other heirs, contested the claim, arguing it was barred by res judicata and that the release deeds were void.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the properties were ancestral and that the plaintiff was entitled to a share under the Hindu Succession Act. The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's decision.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate judge was correct in granting a share to the plaintiff without her establishing entitlement. 2. Whether the plaintiff had a share in the property given her father's death before 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the ancestral property as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, which grants equal rights to daughters. The sale of the property by the male heirs did not extinguish the rights of the female heirs.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the appellate court's judgment that the plaintiff was entitled to a 31/56 share in the suit properties.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2011 passed in A.S.No.84 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District Court, Gobichettipalayam (Fast Tract -2) reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 passed in O.S.No.70 of 2004 on the file of the 1st Additional Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam.
The defendant in the suit for partition is the appellant. The deceased 1st respondent filed the suit for partition claiming 6/7 share in the suit properties. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The first appeal filed by the 1st respondent was allowed granting 31/56 share in the suit properties. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has come by way of this second appeal. Pending second appeal, the 1st respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent 2 to 4.
2. According to the deceased 1st respondent/plaintiff, the suit properties belong to her father Chinaa Gounder. He had two wives by name Senior Karuppayal (first wife) and Junior Karuppayal (second wife). He got a daughter Ammasiammal through first wife Senior Karuppayal and a son and four daughters through second wife Junior Karuppayal. The deceased 1st respondent is the daughter of Chinaa Gounder through Junior Karuppayal. It was claimed by the 1st respondent that after the death of Chinaa Gounder, his surviving heirs, namely Junior Karuppayal and six children each were entitled to 1/7 share in the suit properties. The 1st respondent also got release of 5/7 share from her three sisters, mother and one step sister. Thus, she claimed 6/7 share in the suit properties. Pongiannan, Chinaa Gounder's predeceased son left behind him, his wife and two daughters Gomathi and Jayamani. The appellant herein purchased the entire suit properties from the legal heirs of deceased Pongiannan. It is the case of the 1st respondent that the legal representatives of the deceased Pongiannan had no right to sell the entire suit properties, including the shares of other heirs of Chinaa Gounder and therefore, the suit was filed claiming 6/7th share in the suit properties.
3.The appellant herein filed a written statement and resisted the suit on the ground that one of the daughter of Chinaa Gounder through his 1st wife namely Ammasiammal filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.217 of 1990 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam and the said suit got dismissed for default. Therefore, the present suit filed by the 1st respondent was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The appellant also raised a plea that the release deed allegedly executed by the sisters of the 1st respondent dated 13.06.2003 and rectification deed dated 24.03.2004 were void documents and the same will not convey any title to the 1st respondent and on that ground, he sought for dismissal of the suit.
4.The Trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent failed to prove that the suit properties originally belong to her father Chinaa Gounder and consequently, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent filed an appeal in A.S.No.84 of 2009. Pending first appeal, she also filed an application for reception of additional documents in I.A.No.118 of 2010. The said application was considered along with the appeal and the additional documents filed by the 1st respondent were marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A14. The 1st Appellate Court, based on the additional documents marked before it, namely Ex.A11 to Ex.A14 sale deed in favour of Nanjappa Gounder, father of Chinaa Gounder, came to the conclusion that the suit properties were purchased by the grandfather of 1st respondent namely Nanjappa Gounder. Accordingly, the 1st Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit properties were ancestral properties and hence, Chinaa Gounder is entitled to 1/2 share along with his s
Daughters have equal rights to ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, and the sale of property by male heirs does not negate the rights of female heirs.
The court upheld the entitlement of the plaintiff's share in ancestral properties and directed the determination of her legal heirs and the validity of her Will before distribution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties derived by the father through a partition deed are to be treated as his self-acquired properties, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Suc....
A daughter's entitlement to inherit a share as a co-parcener in ancestral property is upheld, emphasizing the need to distinguish between ancestral and self-acquired properties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim a share in the suit properties based on the evidence and admissions made by the parties.
A legal heir is entitled to an equal share in joint family properties, and claims of exclusive ownership must be substantiated by evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Hindu Succession Act and the rights of daughters as coparceners, as interpreted in the decision of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh....
The burden of proof in establishing relationships and the nature of properties in partition suits is crucial, and the lack of substantiating evidence can influence the court's decision.
Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act grants daughters equal rights to inheritance in coparcenary properties, which necessitates modification of prior partition decrees that fail to account for such ....
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
