Advocates:
['SURESH N', '', 'M GNANAMOORTHY', 'J JANIJEBAMALAR', 'M/S V BALAMURUGANE', '', 'P MUTHUKUMAARASAAMY', 'G GOKUL']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.01.2019

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

A.S.No.666 of 2018

and

C.M.P.No.18202 of 2018

Jayaraman Kounder,

S/o.Late Ranganatha Kounder,

No.71, Villupuram Road,

Murugapakkam,

Mudaliyarpettai Commune,

Puducherry.

... Appellant

Vs

1.Malathi

2.Sumathi

3.Chandramoorthy

S/o.Veerappan,

4.Dharshini,

D/o.Chandramoorthy,

5.Minor Sanjay

S/o.Chandramoorthy,

Rep. by his father and natural guardian

3^rd defendant Chandramoorthy

6.Lakshmi Ammal,

W/o.Late Purushothaman,

7.Mathiazhagan,

S/o.Late Purushothaman,

8.Krishnaraj Purushothaman

9.Babu,

... Respondents

PRAYER : Appeal against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.217 of

2012 dated 27.08.2018 on the file of the learned 1^st Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Appellant

:Mr.N.Suresh

For Respondents

:Mr.K.Kumaresh Babu

for Mr.V.Balamurugane (for R1 to R5)

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J)

The appeal suit has been filed against the Preliminary

Decree and Judgment passed in the partition suit filed by

respondents 1 to 5 against the mother of the plaintiffs and 5^th

defendant, who is a subsequent purchaser.

2.The case of the respondents/plaintiffs before the trial

Court is that the properties belong to Mr.Govindasamy Kounder

and Ms.Thayakannammal and Mr.Purushothama Kounder, who is the

son of the aforesaid two persons. Mr.Govindasamy Kounder

purchased the residential house in his name. Ms.Thayakannammal

purchased the residential properties in her name, which is shown

as item No.1 in the suit schedule. Item No.2 in the suit

schedule property was purchased in the name of Mr.Govindasamy

Kounder and item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule property were

purchased in the name of Purushothama Kounder. After the death

of Mr.Govindasamy Kounder, Mr.Purushothaman Kounder along with

his sons, who are D2, D3 and D4 executed the sale deeds in

respect of item Nos.2 to 4 in favour of the appellant/5^th

defendant. Thereafter, the amendment to the Hindu Succession

Act came into force. Relying that the right accrue to the

plaintiffs, the daughter of Mr.Purushothama Kounder and children

of pre-deceased daughter filed Suit for partition against

Ms.Lakshmi Ammal/mother and their brothers/defendants 2 to 4 and

subsequent

purchasers/5^th

defendant/appellant

and

Joint

Registrar-1, Cuddalore. In the said Suit preliminary decree was

passed. That has been challenged by the subsequent purchaser/5^th

defendant, before this Court.

3.Heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and Mr.K.Kumaresh Babu, learned counsel, for

Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned counsel for R1 to R5.

4.The relationship is admitted. The only question to be

seen is whether the sale deed dated 02.06.1994 executed in

favour of the appellant by the father and brothers of 1^st and 2^nd

respondents/ sisters is valid or whether by virtue of becoming

coparcenar, they are entitled to set aside the same even after

getting a decree of partition. The trial Court, considering the

fact, disbelieved the version put forth by the subsequent

purchaser, stating that the will was executed in favour of the

sons viz., respondents 7 to 9 by the grandfather viz.,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.Govindasamy Kounder. However, it is a fact that the property

was sold by Mr.Purushothama Kounder and three sons viz.,

respondents 7 to 9 on 02.06.1994 itself, whereas the partition

suit was filed after 18 years, only after the amendment of

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, by which the daughters

are also brought on par with the sons as a coparcenar. No

doubt, the daughters have been made coparcenars by virtue of the

amendment. However, there is an exception in proviso to Secti