Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J
P.Rathinam – Appellant
Versus
Nanjammal (deceased) – Respondent
S.A.No.1567 of 2002

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Muthusamy
For the Respondents: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Mr.K.S. Karthik Raja

Daughters have coparcenary rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act, and a partition deed excluding them is invalid unless acted upon.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6(1) - Appeal against partition - The plaintiff, as daughter of Palani Gounder, claimed shares in ancestral and self-acquired properties. The Trial Court granted her shares, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, stating the partition was valid. The court found that the partition deed was not acted upon and the plaintiff had coparcenary rights under the amended Act. The plaintiff is entitled to 7/36 share in both items of the suit property. (Paras 1, 10, 32, 41)

(B) Partition - Validity and rights - A registered partition must be acted upon to be valid; mere registration is insufficient. The absence of shares for daughters in the partition deed indicates an unfair and fraudulent partition. (Paras 31, 32)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed for partition of two items of property claiming shares as the daughter of Palani Gounder. The defendants contended that the first item was partitioned in 1984 and the second item was self-acquired. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, which was reversed by the First Appellate Court.

Findings of Court:
The partition deed was deemed invalid as it excluded daughters, and the plaintiff and other daughters were recognized as coparceners with equal rights. The plaintiff was granted a 7/36 share in both properties.

Issues: Whether the partition was valid and if the plaintiff had established her claim to a share in the properties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the partition deed was not valid as it did not include the daughters, and they have equal rights as coparceners under the amended Act. The findings of the First Appellate Court were erroneous.

Result: The Second Appeal is allowed, and the suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment holds that daughters have coparcenary rights under the amended Hindu Succession Act and a partition deed excluding them is invalid unless acted upon (!) (!) . - A registered partition must be acted upon to be valid; mere registration is insufficient, and an unfair/unauthorized partition (excluding daughters) is not binding (!) (!) . - The plaintiff/daughters are entitled to 7/36 share in both items of the suit properties, and the partition deed’s invalidity leads to coparcenary rights for the plaintiff and her sisters (!) (!) . - The First Appellate Court’s findings on validity of partition are set aside; Ex.B.1 (Partition Deed) is not binding on the plaintiff (!) . - The court discusses allocation shares in the 1st item and 2nd item, concluding the plaintiff and all daughters are coparceners with equal rights; specific 7/36 shares in each item are awarded (!) . - References to amended Section 6 and related Supreme Court judgments (Vineeta Sharma; Prasanta Kumar Sahoo) supporting coparcenary rights post-amendment (!) (!) (!) .

What is the status of coparcenary rights for daughters under the amended Hindu Succession Act in partition claims?

What is required for a registered partition to be considered valid and binding on coparceners?

What is the share of the plaintiff/daughters in the two items of the suit properties under the amended Act?

Table of Content
1. factual background of the partition suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defendants' claims regarding property ownership. (Para 6 , 7)
3. trial court's findings on ancestral property. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. first appellate court's judgment analysis. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. citations of relevant case law. (Para 20 , 21)
7. court's observations on evidence and claims. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
8. court's ruling on the validity of the partition deed. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
9. court's determination of property shares. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
10. final decree and conclusion of the case. (Para 41 , 42)

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.12.2001 in A.S.No.172 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2001 in O.S.No.172 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

3.The appellant is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for partition in respect of two items of the suit properties. In the 1^st item of the suit property, the plaintiff claimed 1/18 share and 1/6 share in the 2^nd item of the suit property against the defendants.

4. Before the Trial Court, the defendants 4 and 5 remained ex parte and the defendants 2 and 3 alone contested the suit.

5.According to the plaintiff, the 1^st item of the suit property is ancestral property in which her father, Palani Gounder, had 1/3 rd share. In that share, she claims 1/18 share, as her father died intestate on 19.10.1995. In respect of the 2nd item of the suit property, it is the self- acquired property of her father. As his legal representative, she is entitled to 1/6 share along with the other legal heirs.

6.The defendants 2 and 3 had filed a Written Statement inter alia contending that the 1^st item of the suit property alone is the joint family property and the same was partitioned between themselves on 04.07.1984.

As per the partition, the 1^st item was divided into three schedules. The “C” schedule was allotted to their father with limited interest. After his demise, his share also devolved upon to the defendants 2 and 3. In that partition, an extent of 1.90 acres was allotted with limited interest. As of now, the second and third defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the first item of the suit property. Even under the new Amendment Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to the first item of the suit property, as the partition had already been acted upon, and she has no coparcenary right.

7. In respect of the 2nd item of the suit property, defendants 2 and 3 stated that the property was purchased out of their self-earned income, with no financial contribution from their father nor income derived from joint family properties. Therefore, the 2nd item of the suit property was not included in the partition. As such, the plaintiff has no right to claim a share in it.

8. The parties proceeded to trial based on the issues framed by the Trial Court. On the side of the plaintiff, she examined herself as PW1, and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as DW1, the 3rd defendant as DW2, and one Karuppusamy Nadar as DW3. Documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B62 were marked.

9.The Trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the first item of the suit property is ancestral property, a fact admitted by all parties. However, it was found that defendants 2 and 3 had already partitioned the property, and this partition was acted upon in the year 1984. Despite this, the plaintiff was not given any share who is a daughter born through the 1^st wife of Palani Gounder. The Partition Deed executed by the defendants came to the plaintiff's knowledge only during the evidence of DW1. The defendan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document