Back
N. SESHASAYEE
Vasumathi – Appellant
Versus
R. Vasudevan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.505 of 2008. The suit is laid for partition of one item of immovable property. Broadly, it is the daughters’ suit for partition against their father and brothers claiming a share in the ancestral property as coparceners. They were successful before the trial Court, and obtained a preliminary decree for partition of 1/5 share each in the suit property, whereas before the first Appellate Court in A.S.No.57 of 2021, which the defendants had preferred, the plaintiffs suffered a reversal of fortune and lost their suit. Hence, this appeal. Parties would now be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
Facts:
2.1 The quintessential facts disclosed in the pleadings are:—
a) The first defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 3 and also the plaintiffs. While the plaintiffs are his daughters, the defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant.
b) The suit property came to be allotted to the share of the first defendant in a partition between him and his brother vide Ext.A1 dated 01.09.1986.
c) Contending that the properties allotted to the first defendant under Ext.A1 partition are ancestral in char
(1) Partition of coparcenary property – Even amongst coparceners, it is possible for a coparcener to renounce his share to other coparceners – Consequence of such renunciation is that interest of cop....
The court reaffirmed that daughters are coparceners under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, and the property in question is ancestral, binding the first defendant to the deed's recitals.
The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.
The court affirmed that partition shares from ancestral property remain joint family property for descendants, entitling them to assert claims over the inherited property.
Daughters have the right to claim a share in ancestral property as coparceners under Sec. 6(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, but their entitlement is limited by the proviso to Sec. 6(1) based on th....
The court established that ancestral property retains its coparcenary character despite partition, affirming the rights of legitimate heirs under Hindu law.
The ancestral property, while partitioned, remains joint family property, allowing children of a coparcener to claim their legitimate share despite their father's sale to others.
Children born from void marriages are deemed legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, allowing them to inherit from their parents' property, including ancestral property.
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
