Daughters' rights to inheritance are denied if a son is alive, per Hindu law before 1956, emphasizing the temporal context of death in succession rights.

JUDGMENT :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

1. The defendants 1 to 4 in a suit for partition have preferred the present second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs have filed the above said suit seeking partition of their 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property. As per the plaint averments, the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of one Chinniah Naicker. He had died intestate in the year 1958 leaving behind his three daughters namely Krishnammal, Saraswathi and Rathinavalli and only son Muruganandam. The legal heirs of the Krishnammal are the plaintiffs. The legal heirs of Saraswathi are arrayed as defendants 5 to 8. Another daughter of Chinniah Naicker namely Rathinavalli has been arrayed as 9^th defendant. The legal heir of the deceased son Muruganandam have been arrayed as defendants 1 to 4.

3.According to the plaintiffs, since Muruganandam was only the male legal heir of deceased Chinniah Naicker, patta was mutated in his name. However, he did not have any exclusive right over the property. After the death of Muruganandam, the defendants 1 to 4 made an attempt to alienate the property and hence, the present suit for partition claiming 1/4^th share.

4.The defendants 1 to 4 had filed a written statement admitting the fact that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired property of Chinniah Naicker. However, they contended that the Chinniah Naicker had passed away in the year 1946 itself and not in the year 1958 as contended by the plaintiffs. Since Chinniah Naicker had died prior to 1956, the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of the deceased daughter are not entitled to any share. At no point of time, the daughters had made any claim over the suit schedule property or enjoyed the proceeds of the said property. Only in the year 1996-1997, payment of tax has been made by the plaintiffs in order to make a claim over the suit schedule property. In fact, the defendants 1 to 4 have been enjoying the property by creating othi. The defendants have been in possession over the suit schedule properties by excluding the plaintiffs and other defendants beyond the statutory period. Therefore, the plaintiffs have been ousted from joint the family property.

5.On the side of the plaintiffs, one Mr.Muthukani was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A5 documents were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant has examined himself as DW1 and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.

6.On the side of the plaintiffs, the death certificate of Chinniah Naicker issued by Ramanathapuram Municipality was marked as Ex.A2 which discloses that he had passed away on 04.04.1958. However, on the side of the defendants, Ex.B1 issued by the Sub Registrar, Ramanathapuram was marked which indicated that M.Chinniah Naidu had passed away on 19.07.1948. The defendants have further filed Ex.B13 which was issued by Ramanathapuram Municipality to show that the document of Ex.A2 produced by the plaintiff is unbelievable. As per Ex.B13, Chinniah Naidu, son of Muthal Naidu alone passed away on 04.04.1958. The defendants have also filed Ex.B9 othi deed dated 31.07.1950. The said othi has been executed by the son of Chinniah Naicker namely Murugananda Naicker in favour of a third party indicating that his father Chinniah Naicker had passed away.

7.The trial Court without considering the genuineness or validity or otherwise of the various documents filed on the side of the plaintiffs and the defendants, did not go into the issue of date of death of Chinniah Naicker. Since the defendants 1 to 4 have not established from their exc