SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
Tmt. V. Chamundeeswari – Appellant
Versus
V. Ganapathy and Ors. – Respondents
A.S.No.83 of 2013
Decided On : 26-02-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. N. Ganesh for Mr. P. Seshadri.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.V. Seshachari.

The date of death of the property owner is critical for succession rights under the Hindu Succession Act, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting an earlier date.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 and Section 14(1) - Partition of property - Dispute over the date of death of original owner affecting succession rights - The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the property as the death of the original owner occurred after the enactment of the Act, thus invoking the provisions of the Act. The Will executed by the grandmother was also upheld as valid. (Paras 3, 4, 25, 26)

(B) Legal principles - The date of death of the property owner is crucial for determining succession rights under the Hindu Succession Act. The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a contrary position regarding the date of death. (Paras 12, 20)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed a share in the property originally belonging to her grandfather, asserting that the property devolved upon her grandmother and mother after the grandfather's death, which the defendants contested, claiming the death occurred prior to the Hindu Succession Act. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim was valid as the death of the original owner occurred after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, thus entitling her to a share. The Will executed by the grandmother was also validated. (Paras 25, 26)

Issues: The main issues included the date of death of the original owner and the validity of the Will executed by the grandmother. (Paras 12, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the date of death is pivotal for succession rights under the Hindu Succession Act, and the defendants failed to prove their assertion regarding the earlier date of death. The Will was upheld as valid. (Paras 20, 24)

Result: Appeal partly allowed, granting a decree of partition. (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

(C. KUMARAPPAN, J.)

The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendants are the respondents herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this case is as follows:-

The suit property originally belongs to one Chengeni Naicker and his wife Tmt.Rukmaniammal @ Rukkammal. They had two daughters viz., Tmt.Navaneetham and Tmt.Unnamalai. Among them, Tmt.Navaneetham predeceased her husband and they had no issues. Another daughter Tmt.Unnamalai had one daughter viz., Tmt.Chamundeeswari [plaintiff] and two sons viz., Mr.Nagarajan and Mr.Ganapathi [first defendant]. Whereas Mr.Nagarajan died, and his legal heirs viz., Mr.Karthikeyan and Mr.N.Ganesh were arrayed as defendants 2 and 3. It is is the specific case of the plaintiff that after the demise of her grandfather Chengeni Naicker, the property jointly devolves upon her grandmother Tmt.Rukmaniammal and their two daughters Tmt.Navaneetham and Tmt.Unnamalai. Since Tmt.Navaneetham's husband not claiming any right over the suit property, after the demise of Tmt.Rukmaniammal, all the property jointly devolved upon her and her two brothers. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed 1/3 share in the suit property under Section 8 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 .

4.The said suit was resisted by the defendants by contending that their grandfather Chengeni Naicker died prior to the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 qua during 1947. Therefore, on the demise of Chengeni Naicker, limited right of life estate was conferred upon the widow of Chengeni Naicker viz., Tmt.Rukmaniammal and that after the advent of “ Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ” [hereinafter called “1956 Act”], by operation of Section 14(1), Tmt.Rukmaniammal's limited right blossomed into a full right. As such, though originally the property belonged to Chengeni Naicker, since he died prior to 1956 Act and by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the suit property becomes the absolute property of Tmt.Rukmaniammal [grandmother of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant]. It is in this background the defendant put forth a will dated 24.08.1982 executed by Tmt.Rukmaniammal, bequeathing the entire suit property to the first defendant and his brother late Nagarajan. Therefore, it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has no right in the suit property, and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined 2 witnesses viz., the plaintiff herself, and Chengeni Naicker's son-in-law Natesan, qua the husband of late Navaneetham. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant himself was examined as DW1, and the attestor to the Ex.B1-Will dated 24.08.1982 was examined as DW2. On behalf of the plaintiff, 10 documents were relied and the defendants relied one document.

6. On the pleadings of either side, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether late Tmt.Rukmaniammal is the widow of Kuppusamy Naicker?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the Suit Schedule properties?

(iii)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for past, present and future mesne profits as claimed in the Plaint?

(iv)Whether the Suit property are the joint family properties of the Plaintiff and the Defendants?

(v)Whether the particulars given by the Plaintiff regarding the relationship are correct?

(vi)To what other reliefs is the Plaintiff is entitled?

(Extracted as it is)

7. In respect of issue nos.1 and 5, the Trial Court held that in view of filing of amended plaint, and the correction of errors regarding the relationship, concluded that Tmt.Rukmaniammal is the wife of Chengeni Naicker, as contended by the defendant. In respect of issue Nos.2, 3 and 4, the Trial Court has concluded that in view of the death of Chengeni Naicker prior to 1956, a limited right vests upon Chengeni Naicker's wife Tmt.Rukmaniammal, and ultimately the same enlarged into a full rig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top