IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.12.2025 PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE S.A. No. 550 of 2014

1. Veliammal 2. Sivakumar

3. Kalaivani

4. Sumathi

5. Lalitha

6. Minor Vinothini

7. Minor Vimalraj … Appellants Vs.

1. Chinnakulandai

2. Chinnappu

3. Poongavanammal (died) ... Respondents R3 died. R1 and R2 are recorded as legal heirs of the deceased R3 vide order of Court dated 13.03.2020 made in S.A.No.550 of 2014 as per memo dated

12.03.2020 are recorded (RSMJ)

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2013 passed in A.S.No.22 of 2012 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2011 in O.S.No.161 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Gingee.

For Appellant : Mr. T. Dhanasekaran.

For Respondents : Mr. G. Raja for R1 R2 – served - no appearance R3 – Died.

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated

02.09.2013 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gingee in A.S.No.22 of 2012, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2011 of the Principal District Munsif Court, Gingee in O.S.No.161 of 2006, wherein the suit for partition was partly decreed declaring that the plaintiff/daughter is entitled to

1/12th share in the suit properties.

3.This Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants mainly challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on the grounds of alleged oral partition, ouster, and limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4.The brief facts of the case necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit for partition claiming 5/16 share in the suit properties. The suit properties originally belonged to one Arya Gounder, father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and husband of the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff contended that the suit properties are ancestral in nature and that no partition had ever taken place. It was also pleaded that certain properties though standing in the name of the father and one of the defendants were acquired from joint family income.

5.The defence was that an oral partition had already taken place during the lifetime of Arya Gounder, by which the sons alone were allotted properties and that the plaintiff was excluded decades ago. It was also pleaded that as the plaintiff was married prior to the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act of 1989 and since the father died in 1991, she is not entitled to claim the status of a coparcener. The defendants further pleaded ouster by long exclusion and limitation.

6.Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently held that the suit properties are ancestral in nature; The alleged oral partition pleaded by the defendant has not been proved; The plea of ouster is not substantiated by evidence; The suit is not barred by limitation; and the plaintiff is entitled only to 1/12th share being her share out of her father’s notional share under the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiff can not claim benefit under the 2005 Amendment Act since succession opened on the demise of her father in the year 1991.

7.This Court finds that the grounds urged in the memorandum of Second Appeal relate entirely to factual findings already decided concurrently by both Courts below. The so-called admissions relied upon by the defendants only demonstrate a loose arrangement for convenience of enjoyment and not a legal partition. In view of Explanation to Section 6(5) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, partition must be either under a registered instrument or decree of Court. Hence the alleged oral partition is legally unsustainable. No perversity, illegality or misapplication of law has been established.

8.While parting with the appeal, this Court takes judicial notice of the subsequent authoritative pronou