Back
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL
Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Susila Tharani – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(R. Sakthivel, J.)
(Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2017 made in O.S.No.237 of 2005 on the file of Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu and dismiss the Original Suit.)
(PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2017 made in O.S.No.237 of 2005 on the file of Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu and decree the Suit as prayed in the Original Suit.)
Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated December 22, 2017 passed in O.S.No.237 of 2005 by ‘the Additional District Court, Chengalpattu’ (henceforth 'Trial Court'), the plaintiffs therein filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.688 of 2018, and the defendants 3 to 11 therein filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.299 of 2018. Since both the Appeal Suits arise out of the same judgment and decree, they are disposed of by this Common Judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the pa
Daughters are coparceners by birth under the amended Hindu Succession Act, entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties.
The properties in question were determined to be ancestral, granting coparcenary rights to the daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The court affirmed that the plaintiff, as a coparcener by birth, is entitled to a ½ share in ancestral properties under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and ruled against the validity of transactions ....
Properties inherited from a divided father are considered separate and not ancestral, affecting claims for partition under Hindu law.
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.
Point of law: A daughter of a coparcener by birth becomes a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. She has the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she....
The plaintiff failed to prove that the Suit 'B' Schedule properties were ancestral, and the Suit was barred by limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Daughters are recognized as coparceners under amended Hindu Succession Act, with entitlements to ancestral property shares, emphasizing distinctions between ancestral and separate properties.
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
