Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Kamalam – Appellant
Versus
Palaniammal (Deceased) – Respondent
S.A. Nos. 1227, 1228 of 2007
Decided On : 19-06-2024
Partition - Hindu Succession Act - Sections 6, 8 - The court interpreted the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, emphasizing the rights of coparceners and the necessity of including all necessary parties in partition suits, leading to the conclusion that the decree in a prior suit did not bind the minor coparceners.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a partition dispute over ancestral properties following the death of Kandasamy Gounder. The plaintiff, Palaniammal, sought a partition against her son Periyannan, who attempted to claim the properties solely for himself. Subsequent suits were filed by Kamalam and her children, who were not parties to the original suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties were ancestral and that the decree from the earlier suit did not bind the minor plaintiffs, as they were not parties to that suit. The court emphasized the need for all coparceners to be included in partition proceedings.
Issues: The main issues included whether the decree in a partition suit binds minor coparceners not impleaded in the suit, and whether the executing court could grant relief to obstructors under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a decree in a partition suit obtained by one coparcener does not bind other minor coparceners who were not parties to the suit, affirming the necessity of including all necessary parties in such proceedings.
Result: The Second Appeals were allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside, declaring the earlier decree not binding on the minor plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2007 made in A.S. No. 21 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 15.12.2006 made in R.E.A. No. 861 of 2005 in R.E.P. No. 354 of 2004 in O.S. No. 150 of 1997 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Namakkal.
1. The Second Appeal in S.A. No. 1227 of 2007 is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 29, 2007 passed in A.S. No. 21 of 2007 by the ‘Subordinate Court, Namakkal’ [henceforth ‘First Appellate Court’ for the sake of brevity], confirming the fair and decreetal order dated December 15, 2006 passed in R.E.A. No. 861 of 2005 in R.E.P. No. 354 of 2004 in O.S. No. 150 of 1997 by the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal [henceforth ‘Execution Court’ for the sake of brevity].
2. The Second Appeal in S.A. No. 1228 of 2007 is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 29, 2007 passed in A.S. No. 50 of 2005 by the First Appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree dated February 23, 2005 passed in O.S. No. 66 of 2003 by the ‘Additional District Munsif, Namakkal’ [henceforth ‘Trial Court’ for the sake of brevity].
3. In S.A. No. 1227 of 2007, the appellants and the first respondent-Palaniammal are the petitioners/obstructors and the petitioner/plaintiff respectively in R.E.A. No. 861 of 2005 in R.E.P. No. 354 of 2004 in O.S. No. 150 of 1997 before the Execution Court.
4. In S.A. No. 1228 of 2007, the appellants and the respondents are the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively in O.S. No. 66 of 2003 before the Trial Court.
5. Henceforth, for the sake of clarity and convenience, unless otherwise specified, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the O.S. No. 66 of 2003 on the file of Trial Court.
6. Tmt.Palaniammal filed a Suit in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 before the Subordinate Court, Namakkal, praying for partition and to direct Periyannan - first defendant (D1) therein to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff.
6.1. The case of Palaniammal - plaintiff therein, is that, her husband - Kandasamy Gounder died intestate in the year 1987, leaving behing him, his son Periyannan (1st defendant), three daughters namely Sarasu (2nd defendant), Nallammal (3rd defendant) and Vijaya (4th defendant). The 2nd defendant Sarasu passed away in 1995, leaving behind 5th defendant to 7th defendant (D5 to D7) therein as her legal heirs. The Suit Properties are self-acquired of her husband. She along with her children are entitled equal share under Section 8 of ‘the Hindu Succession Act, 1956’ (henceforth ‘H.S. Act’). Her son - Periyannan, tried to acquire the Suit Properties entirely for himself. Hence, she caused legal notice dated September 12, 1990 to her son. Since there was no reply from her son, she filed the Suit in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 before the Subordinate Court, Namakkal for the above stated reliefs.
7. Her son - Periyannan, filed written statement wherein he has evasively resisted the averments made by the plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the Suit.
8. The second defendant-Sarasu also filed written statement wherein she has evasively resisted the averments made by the plaintiff and prayed to dismiss the Suit.
9. The Suit in O.S. No. 413 of 1990 was subsequently transferred to the file of Trial Court and renumbered as O.S. No. 150 of 1997.
9.1. The following issue was framed by the Trial Court in the Suit in O.S. No. 150 of 1997:
9.2. On the side of the plaintiff, Palaniammal examined herself as PW-1 and Ex-A.1 and Ex-A.2 were marked. Neither witnesses nor documents were marked on the side of the defendants therein. The defendants therein, did not appear and choose to contest the case, hence, they were called absent and set ex-parte.
9.3. The Trial Court passed a prelimina
The court established that a partition decree does not bind minor coparceners not included in the suit, reinforcing the importance of their representation in legal proceedings.
The court affirmed that admissions made during trial are binding, and ancestral properties cannot be dismissed based on a registered Partition Deed that does not negate the rights of coparceners.
The court affirmed that items 1 and 2 of suit properties are ancestral, and items 3 to 11 are self-acquired, highlighting the plaintiffs' burden to prove family property claims.
Co-owners are presumed to be in constructive possession of property unless ouster is proven, impacting court fee valuation in partition suits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in establishing the nature of the suit property and the entitlement to seek relief by way of partition, as well as the i....
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....
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.
A son born from a void marriage has rights to inheritance under amendments to the Hindu Succession Act, affirming equal status to legitimate and illegitimate children in claims for partition post the....
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
