Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 91278
MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VENKITTAN ALIAS (Died) – Appellant
Versus
JAYAMANI – Respondent
AS 293 2013
The husband of an issueless female Hindu who dies intestate is not a necessary party in a suit for partition of property inherited by the father from his father.
Headnote:
PARTITION - NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES - HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 - SECTION 15(2) - HUSBAND OF DECEASED DAUGHTER OF DECEASED FATHER - NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN SUIT FOR PARTITION OF PROPERTY INHERITED BY FATHER FROM HIS FATHER.
Fact of the Case:
Suit for partition of ancestral property by the daughter of the first defendant and sister of the defendants 2 and 3. The first defendant contended that the suit property was his separate property and that the plaintiff had relinquished her rights in the suit properties in a compromise entered between the parties. The defendants also contended that the sons and daughters of Rangavannan, who is the father of the first defendant and the husband of predeceased daughter Annakodi, are necessary parties to the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the husband of the predeceased daughter of the first defendant is not a necessary party in the suit as per Section 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act. The court also held that the plaintiff had not relinquished her rights in the suit properties and that the first item of the suit property was a joint family property.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?2. Whether this appeal can be allowed or not?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The basic aim of Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act is to ensure that inherited property of an issueless female Hindu dying intestate goes back to the source. It was enacted to prevent inherited property falling into the hands of strangers.2. When an issueless female had died intestate, such property will not devolve upon her husband and the property would revert back to the original source.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the preliminary decree passed by the trial court was confirmed.
JU D G M E N T
This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated
10.04.2013 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge of Erode. in O.S.No.189 of 2011.
2.The Appellants 2 and 3 are the Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No. 189 of
2011 and Plaintiff in the above suit who is the respondent herein.
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked before the trial Court as Plaintiff and Defendant.
3.The case of the plaintiff in brief:
The plaintiff is the daughter of the 1 defendant and sister of the defendants 2 and 3. On 07.03.1973, one Ranga vannan, the father of 1st defendant and grand father of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 purchased the 1st item of the suit properties out of his earnings and income from ancestral properties in his favour and as well as in favour of his sons namely the first defendant, one Linga vannan and Karuppa vannan. The said Ranga vannan died intestate 18 years ago leaving behind him, his sons, the first defendant the said Lingavannan and Karuppavannan and his two daughters Pappath and Nagammal. The said two daughters got married and they are living separately with their husbands. On 18.6.2004, the 1st defendant and his brothers Linga vannan alias Lingappan and Karuppavannan alias Karupaswamy have partitioned the property left by their father Rangavannan and the first defendant, the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 were allotted 'A' schedule property described in the said partition deed. The said property was purchased by the said Ranga vannan, the paternal grand father of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3 and the first defendant out of the income from the ancestral properties. Hence, it is ancestral joint family property of the plaintiff. On 14.09.2009 there was a partition among the plaintiff and defendants on one hand and the families of brothers and sisters of 1st defendant, the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 on the other hand. They partitioned the properties purchased by one Chinnavannan, the grand father of the 1st defendant on 2.5.1940. In the said partition, the plaintiff and the defendants were allotted the 'A' schedule property. The properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in common as per Hindu Succession Amendment Act 39 of 2005. The plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying the suit properties in common and they have built a house from the common fund in the 2nd item of the suit properties. The plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to 1/4th share each in common. There is no partition between them.
The defendants tried to sell the 1st item of the suit properties to some third parties. The plaintiff approached the defendants for amicable partition of the suit properties. But the defendants are not amenable for amicable partition. Hence, she issued a lawyer notice on 16.06.2011 for partition of the 1" item of the suit properties alone, since the plaintiff was not having full particulars regarding the items 2 and 3 of the suit properties. The defendants sent a reply notice dated 27.06.201 through their advocate denying the claim of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for partition and permanent injunction.
4. The 1st defendant, the father of the plaintiff filed the written statement, adopted by the defendants 2 and 3 denying the allegations of the plaintiff that the 1st item of the suit property was purchased by Ranga vannan from the income of the ancestral properties. The 1st item of the suit property is the separate property of the 1st defendant herein hence the plaintiff has no legal right or interest what so ever over the same. Even assuming that the property purchased by Ranga vannan was only out of his own earnings and as such it is the separate property. There was a partition on 14.09.2009 between the family of 1st defendant and his brothers. In the month of May 2003, the plaintiff's husband drove the plaintiff from the house deman
