IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA S.A. No. 448 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011 Usha ...Appellants Vs.

1.Sankari (died)

2.Manimegalai

3.Kannagi

4.Durga

5.Poongothai

6.Padmanaban

7.Janardanan 8.Vedammal 9.Ganapathy

10.Selvi

11.Prabhu [Respondents 6 to 11 not necessary parties in Second Appeal, hence notice may be dispensed with]

12.Yasodha

13.Vijakumar ...Respondents [R1-died, R12 and R13 are brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased R1 vide Court order dated 22.01.2025 made in C.M.P. Nos. 25557, 25561 and 25564 of 2024 in S.A. No. 448 of

2011 made by this Court.]

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010 made in A.S. No. 8 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Judge, Vellore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2009 made in O.S. No. 711 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Vellore. For Appellants : M/s.R.T.Sundari For Respondents : R1 – died Mr.P.Rathanavel [RR2 to 5, 12 & 13]

RR6, 7 & 9 – dismissed vide Court Order dated 16.12.2022.

R8, R10, R11 – Name printed - No appearance

J U D G M E N T

th The Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant /7 defendant challenging the judgment of the learned Sub Judge, Vellore dated 13.12.2010 made in A.S. No. 8 of 2010. The respondents /plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S. No. 711 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vellore for claiming partition in the suit property. The said suit was dismissed on

14.12.2009 and on which, the First Appeal has been preferred in A.S. No. 8 of 2010 before the Sub Judge, Vellore and the same got allowed on 13.12.2010.

th Aggrieved over the same, the 7 defendant had preferred this Second Appeal. 2. On hearing the arguments of both sides, who had advanced their arguments, I feel this Second Appeal involves only the following substantial question of law:-

(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to share as per Amendment Act 39 of 2005 of Hindu Succession Act, if on that date there is no property of joint family?

3. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint are as under:

3.1. The suit property was originally owned by the paternal grandfather of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4, viz., Gangadhara Gounder. Two brothers of the plaintiffs, viz., Parthasarathy and Natarajan were no more, even at the time of filing the suit itself and hence, their legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 5 and 6.

th

3.2. The appellant/ 7 defendant claims to be a purchaser of a portion of the property from defendants and hence, he filed an application to implead himself as a party to the proceedings and th thereby, he also got impleaded as 7 defendant.

3.3. The grandfather of the plaintiffs, viz., Gangadhara Gounder died leaving behind two sons, viz., Munisamy and Venugopal. As Venugopal has remained unheard for several years and he also died without leaving any legal heirs, the whole of the property has been inherited and enjoyed by the plaintiffs’ father, viz., Munisamy. The said Munisamy died on 26.12.1959 by leaving behind his wife, four sons and two daughters, who are the plaintiffs herein, as legal representatives.

3.4. The mother of the plaintiffs, Visalakshi also died on 03.06.1989. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition by claiming that as the legal heirs of the deceased father, they are entitled to shares in the suit property. In view of the Amendment to Hindu Succession Act, was brought in the year 2005, the plaint got amended on that basis and thus, the plaintiffs claim equal share in the suit property along with their brothers.

st

4. The brief averments in the written statement of the 1 defendant are as under:

4.1. The date of death of Munisamy Gounder on 26.12.1959 is not admitted. He died prior to the coming into force of the year Hindu Succession Act, in the year 1956. Even during the life time of Munisamy Gounder, the joint family prope