Hindu women's limited estate rights transform into absolute ownership under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Tiruvannamalai in A.S.No.4 of 2009 dated 25.08.2009, reversing the judgment and decree of the Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.46 of 2007 dated 16.12.2008.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit has been filed seeking preliminary decree for partition of plaintiff's 2/3 share in the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree as prayed. The defendants have preferred the first appeal challenging the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been modified by reducing the share from 2/3rd to 1/3rd share. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

3. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The suit property belonged to one Kuppaiya Pilla and he was in possession of the property as an absolute owner. He died intestate leaving his three sons namely Ponnusamy Pillai, Vasudeva Pillai and Manikkam Pillai and subsequent to his death, these three sons have inherited the property and they were in enjoyment of the same. Ponnusamy Pillai died intestate leaving his sons Vadamalai and Harikrishnan and they succeeded his undivided 1/3rd share in the suit property. Hari Krishnan transferred his 1/6th share in the suit property in favour of one Rasappa Udaiyar and he inturn transferred the same in favour of Dhanammal. Vadamalai died intestate leaving his 1/6th share to be inherited by his wife Dhanammal and son Radhakrishnan. So that they became absolute owners of his 1/3rd share. Dhanammal and her son Radhakrishnan transferred their 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1990. The 1/3rd share of Vasudeva Pillai has been inherited by his legal heirs jointly, who are the defendants herein. Manikkam Pillai's 1/3rd share was inherited by his wife Ariyamalai. The said Ariyamalai gifted her 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff under a registered gift deed dated 17.10.1973. Thus, the plaintiff had become the owner of 1/3rd share through a registered gift deed dated 17.10.1973 obtained from Ariyamalai. Another 1/3rd share through a sale deed dated 11.10.1990 obtained from Dhanammal and Radhakrishnan. As the shares of the plaintiff are undivided, he had filed the suit for partition of his 2/3rd share.

4. The written statement in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share. After the death of Manikkam, his 1/3rd share was inherited by his wife Ariyamalai and her four daughters. Ariyamalai died intestate and she did not execute any gift deed as alleged by the plaintiff. Since the other daughters of Ariyamalai have not been impleaded, the suit is barred for non joinder of parties. Even if there is a gift deed, it could have been only a forged document.

5. On the basis of the above pleading, the trial Court has framed the following issues :

1. Whether the settlement deed dated 17.10.1973 is true and valid?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a preliminary decree for partition by dividing the suit properties into 3 equal shares and allot 3 such shares to him?

4. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

6. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court had decreed the suit as