Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5111

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.Murali Shankar, J.

V.Ramamurthi and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sivakamiammal(died) and ors. – Respondents
S.A.(MD)No.47 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1835 of 2019
Decided On : 16-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mrs.J.Maria Roseline
For the Respondent:Mr.R.Baskaran, Senior Counsel, for Mr.M.Siddharthan

The Hindu Succession Act's provisions do not apply retrospectively to successions that occurred before its enactment, precluding daughters from inheriting property from fathers who died before 1956.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Claim for partition - Appellant challenged lower court's ruling granting daughter rights in property inherited prior to 1956 Act's enforcement. Court found property belonged to deceased before the Act, hence daughter not eligible for share. (Paras 8-20)

(B) Retrospective application of law - Court noted that provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, particularly concerning daughters' rights, do not apply retrospectively to successions that opened prior to the Act. (Paras 15-19)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share of property originally owned by grandfather, asserting her right against her brothers post their father's death. The defendants contended the property was absolute and released claims. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The First Appellate Court's ruling granting a share to the plaintiff was overturned due to the timing of the succession's opening pre-dating the Hindu Succession Act's enactment. (Paras 20-21)

Issues: Main questions included whether the 1956 Act applies retrospectively and the adjudication of property nature without necessary issue framing. (Paras 8-9)

Ratio Decidendi: Court reasoned that since the property succession opened before the Act, the provisions of the 1956 Act could not confer rights to daughters. The focus was on traditional inheritance rules prior to the Act's enactment. (Paras 19-20)

Result: Second Appeal allowed; lower court's decree set aside.

Table of Content
1. introduction and parties involved in the litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. plaintiff's assertions and defendants' admissions. (Para 4 , 5)
3. identified issues for determination in trial. (Para 6)
4. summary of trial court's decisions and appeals. (Para 7 , 8)
5. defendants' arguments against the first appellate court's decision. (Para 9 , 10)
6. court assessment of property nature and pleadings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
7. main legal issue regarding inheritance rights. (Para 14)
8. legal precedents regarding retrospectivity of law. (Para 15 , 16)
9. court's application of the old laws to the case. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
10. final decision of the court on the appeal. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT :

K.Murali Shankar, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.45 of 2014, dated 05.11.2016, on the file of the Principal District Court, Trichirappalli, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.54 of 2007, dated 24.07.2014, on the file of II Additional Subordinate Court, Trichirappalli.

2. The appellants are the defendants 4 to 9 and the first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit claiming partition and allottment of 1/3^rd share in the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that her grandfather – Veerappillai was the absolute owner of the suit property and after his demise, his son Somasundaram Pillai succeeded to the suit property and was enjoying the same, that the said Somasundaram Pillai died in the year 1949 leaving behind two sons namely the first defendant – Dhandavarayapillai and Soma.Veerappan – father of the defendants 4 to 9 and a daughter - Sivakami Ammal – plaintiff herein, that the plaintiff got married on 11.02.1955 and after her marriage, she has been residing in one portion of the suit property and also doing her profession as Siddha Doctor, that the defendants 4 to 9 are also in possession and enjoyment of the portion of the suit property, that after the death of their father Somasundaram Pillai, the plaintiff requested her brothers to partition the suit property and both of them promised that the property will be partitioned with the help of the elders, that after the death of her brother Soma.Veerappan, his legal heirs – the defendants 4 to 9 do not keep the promise and they have attempted to alienate the property and also to evict the plaintiff and the defendants 4 to 9 have also refused to share the profits from the suit property and that therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for partition.

5. The defendants 4 to 9 have filed the written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and also the plaint averments that the suit property came to be owned by Somasundaram Pillai and his death in the year 1949. The defence of the defendants 4 to 9 is that after the death of Somasundaram Pillai, the first defendant had executed a release deed dated 15.06.1951 in favour of his brother Soma.Veerappan – father of the defendants 4 to 9, that the said Soma.Veerappan, in pursuance of the release deed, had repaid the mortgage loan and redeemed the property, that he had taken care of her mother and conducted all her last rites properly, that he conducted the marriage of their sister – the plaintiff by giving all sridhanas and thereby the said Soma.Veerappan had complied with all the conditions embodied in the release deed, that Soma.Veerappan had thus become the owner of the property and had been paying the taxes therefor, that the said Soma.Veerappan along with his mother had executed a mortgage deed dated 26.01.1956 in favour of one Paripoornathammal and since the first defendant had already released his rights in the suit property, he does not stand in the execution of the mortgage deed, that the mortgage loan was obtained only for meeting out the marriage expenses of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff has been