Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.Murali Shankar
V.Ramamurthi – Appellant
Versus
Sivakamiammal (died) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks partition based on inheritance. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. issues framed for determination in the case. (Para 6 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. arguments on ancestral vs self-acquired property. (Para 9 , 10 , 19) |
| 4. application of hindu succession act and retrospective issues. (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. decision to dismiss 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 1/3rd 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 enjoyin
Daughters are barred from inheriting from their father if succession opened prior to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which does not retroactively apply.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that properties derived by the father through a partition deed are to be treated as his self-acquired properties, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Suc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Central enactment prevails over the State law, and the daughters, including those married prior to 1994, are entitled to an equal share in....
The properties in question were determined to be ancestral, granting coparcenary rights to the daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act grants daughters equal rights as coparceners, allowing them to claim shares in ancestral properties irrespective of their birth date.
Daughters have equal rights as coparceners in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, affecting share distribution in partition cases.
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
