Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Subramanian, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
V.J. Deenadayalan and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jayamani and ors. - Respondents
A.S.Nos.240 and 267 of 2013 and MP Nos.1 and 1 of 2013 AS No.240 of 2013
Decided On : 24-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.T. Muruga Manickam
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Manokaran

The court affirmed that daughters are coparceners entitled to equal shares in ancestral property, overriding claims of separate ownership based on the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.

Headnote:(A) Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Sections 3 and 4 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Amendment Act, 2005 - Partition and separate possession - Plaintiffs sought partition of ancestral properties and claimed shares following the death of their father. Defendants contended that properties were separate and not ancestral, citing a Settlement Deed and Wills. Court found properties to be ancestral and ruled that daughters are coparceners. Dismissed claims regarding the Settlement Deed and Wills. (Paras 2-24)

(B) Ancestral Property - Definition - Properties derived from joint family nucleus are ancestral, and daughters are entitled to share as coparceners post-amendment of the Hindu Succession Act. (Paras 19-23)

(C) Validity of Wills and Settlement Deed - Wills not proved per legal requirements; Settlement Deed invalid as properties were coparcenary. (Paras 21-22)

(D) Amendment of plaint - Allowed to include properties purchased in the name of daughters, curing the defect of non-inclusion. (Paras 17-20) (E)

Result: AS No.267 of 2013 allowed; AS No.240 of 2013 dismissed.

JUDGEMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

Challenge in these Appeals is to the common judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam in OS Nos.11 and 13 of 2007.

2. While AS No.240 of 2013 is by the plaintiffs in OS No.13 of 2007, AS No.267 of 2013 is by the plaintiffs in OS No.11 of 2007. In the suit in OS No.11 of 2007, the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of V.P.Appachi Gounder and Palaniammal, sought for partition and separate possession of their 5/16th share each in the suit properties and for delivery of possession. They had inter alia contended that their father Appachi Gounder was allotted several income yielding landed properties at a partition between him and his father Palani Gounder that took place on 20.09.1950.

3. Out of the income earned from the said lands, Appachi Gounder had purchased several other items of lands and the lands that were allotted to Appachi Gounder at the partition and the lands that were purchased by him out of the income from the ancestral nucleus were shown as ‘A’ Schedule Properties. Appachi Gounder also purchased several properties in the name of the second defendant who is his only son. Those properties that were purchased by Appachi Gounder in the name of his son / the second defendant under Exhibits A8 to A15 were shown as ‘B’ Schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, on the death of Appachi Gounder on 13.03.2006, the plaintiffs, as coparceners, would be entitled to an equal share as that of the son. Therefore, they claimed a 5/16th share each in the suit properties.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The second defendant filed a separate written statement contending that the properties that are allotted to Appachi Gounder at the partition did not yield any notable income that would have contributed for the purchase of the other properties. Appachi Gounder served as a Village Munsif for several years. The second defendant who discontinued his education at the age of 11 managed the entire family, as the father Appachi Gounder was working as a Village Munsif. His maternal grandfather Kandappa Gounder had purchased 2 acres 4 cents of land in the name of the second defendant in 1968 and therefore, the land that is situate in Pudukarai Village measuring about 2 acres 4 cents is his separate property. A claim was made to the effect that the second defendant became divided from Appachi Gounder even in the year 1980.

5. The claim that the entire suit ‘B’ Schedule Properties were purchased from and out of the joint family income was stoutly denied. It was also contended that the Income earned from the properties were expended for celebrating the marriages of the plaintiffs. It was also contended that certain properties were purchased by Appachi Gounder in the name of his daughters viz. the plaintiffs also and the non-inclusion of those properties would render the suit bad for partial partition.

6. An extent of 80 cents of land was also purchased by Appachi Gounder on 22.04.1977 in the name of the first defendant Palaniammal and those lands should also be included in the suit for partition. He also contended that Appachi Gounder had executed a Will on 21.11.1990 bequeathing the properties to the second defendant and he has also executed a Settlement Deed on 06.03.2006 in favour of defendants 3 and 4. Therefore, the second defendant sought for dismissal of the Partition suit. The first defendant Palaniammal filed a written statement supporting the cause of the plaintiffs. She also claimed that the properties that were purchased in her name belonged to her absolutely.

7. Not content with defending the suit for partition, the sons of the second defendant, who were cited as defendants 3 and 4, laid a separate suit in OS No.11 of 2007, for declaration that they are the owners of the suit properties which form part of the ‘A’ Schedule properties in OS No.11 of 2007 as items 3 and 4 of ‘A’ Schedule, pursuant to the Settlement Deed dated 06.03.2006 executed by Appachi Gounder.