Widow's right to claim share in ancestral property established under Hindu Succession Act, where properties purchased through ancestral nucleus retain joint family character.

JUDGMENT :

(C. KUMARAPPAN, J.)

The defendants and plaintiff are the appellants and the respondent respectively.

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

3.It is the case of the plaintiff that, she is the wife of late Ragunathan. The first and fifth defendants are the parents of late Ragunathan. The other defendants 2 to 4 are late Regunathan's brothers and sisters. According to the plaintiff, she married Ragunathan as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. While so, he died on 16.02.2004, and that during his lifetime, he has taken LIC policy for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. It is the further submission of the plaintiff that the suit schedule “A” item of the property is the joint family property of late Ragunathan. As such the plaintiff being his class I legal heir is entitled to have 1/5^th share in the “A” schedule property, and 1/2 share in “B and C” schedule properties. The plaintiff further submits that she has been in joint possession of the suit properties and that, after the demise of her husband Regunathan, the defendants are denying her share. Hence, she comes up with the instant suit.

4.The said suit was resisted by all the defendants, by contending that the suit schedule “A” property was the self acquired property of the first and fifth defendants, and that LIC amount and other compensation paid by the TamilNadu Kattumana Thozhilarkal Nala Variyam, Chennai, have been shared among the sharers. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for a partition. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

5.Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff relied on as many as 21 documents qua Exs.A1 to A21, and the defendants, relied on 11 documents, which were marked as Exs.B1 to B11. On behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants, three witnesses each were examined.

6.The Trial Court, after having considered the oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for a share of 1/10 share in “A” Schedule property alone, and dismissed the suit in respect of “B & C” schedule properties. Aggrieved over the said judgment, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.54 of 2009, whereas, the first appellate Court concurred with the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. Not satisfying with the above judgment of the first appellate Court, the defendants preferred the instant second appeal.

7.On admission of the Second Appeal, on 20.10.2010, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law:-

“1.Whether in law the courts below are right in failing to see that there were no joint family nucleus adequate to purchase other properties and that the respondent had failed to prove the existence of a joint family?

2.Whether in law the courts below were right in overlooking that the suit had to be valued under Section 37 (1) of the T.N.Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is there was no joint possession?”

8.I heard Ms.Nilaphor for Mr. T.Sezhian, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.A.P.Neelamegavannan, learned counsel for the respondent.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would vehemently contend that the respondent/plaintiff having categorically admitted that the suit item 1 to 3 stand in the name of the first defendant, and item 4 and 5 stand in the name of the fifth defendant, may entitle share only in the joint family property qua item 6 & 7 of the suit property. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that, the suit has not been valued properly. It is also the specific contention of the defendants