Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5050

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

Daughters are barred from inheriting from their father if succession opened prior to the Hindu Succession Act of 1956, which does not retroactively apply.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Appeal concerning partition of ancestral property - The suit property was claimed by the plaintiff, as granddaughter of original owner, asserting inheritance rights. The Appellate Court found that the property was separate, awarding 1/3rd share to each heir. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 8 and determined that the plaintiff, being a daughter, was not entitled to inheritance because the succession opened prior to the Act's enactment in 1956. Controversies surrounding the nature of the property and subsequent rulings highlighted inconsistencies with legal admissions. (Paras 8-20)

(B) Legal Principles - Retrospective Application - The court held that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, particularly Section 8, do not apply retrospectively to successions that opened before the Act came into force. Also reaffirmed the limited rights of daughters under Old Hindu Law with regard to property succession prior to 1956. (Paras 15-20)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a partition for her claimed 1/3rd share of property after familial disputes post her grandfather's death. The legal heirs of her brothers argued against her claim based on a release deed and the property’s treatment as separate property. (Paras 4-6)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the property was not ancestral but was absolute and separately owned by Somasundaram Pillai posthumously, warranting equal shares to siblings who survived him. The court declared that the plaintiff was barred from inheritance under operational Old Hindu Law, which predated the Hindu Succession Act. (Paras 20, 21)

Issues: The essential questions included the interpretation of property ancestrality and rights of daughters under Old Hindu Law, and the application of the Hindu Succession Act relative to when the succession opened. (Paras 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the father of the plaintiff died prior to the Hindu Succession Act, the rights of daughters to inheritance were restricted, citing prior rulings to reinforce its decision against the applicability of equitable rights under the Act. (Paras 19, 20)

Result: The Second Appeal allowed, previous judgments set aside, and the suit dismissed.

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 1/3^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 permitting to reside in a portion of the suit property considering the relationship and also the fact that she has lost her husband, that since the plaintiff got married in 1955 itself, she cannot claim any right or share in the suit property, that the cause of action alleged in the plaint are false and frivolous and that therefore, the suit