The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which conferred coparcenary rights on daughters, cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate dispositions or alienations of property that took place before the amendment came into force.

A.S.No.303 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment reserved on:

01.09.2022

Judgment delivered on:

04.01.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

A.S.No.303 of 2016 and

C.M.P.No.6219 of 2016

Krishnasamy Gounder (Died)

Kalaichamy

.. Appellant

Vs.

1.Eswari

2.Ponnuthai

3.Saraswathi

.. Respondents

(2^nd appellant, viz., Saraswathi transposed as

3^rd respondent in A.S.No.303 of 2016 vide

order of this Court dated 08.06.2022 made in

C.M.P.No.13839 of 2016 in A.S.No.303 of

2016)

Prayer: This First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the

judgment and decree dated 04.12.2015 made in O.S.No.166 of 2012 on

the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

1/43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.303 of 2016

For Appellant

: Mr.D.Ravichander

For RR 1 & 2

: Mr.N.Sridhar

for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

For R3

: Mr.R.Murali

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.M.VELUMANI,J.)

Initially the 3^rd respondent viz., Saraswathi was shown as 2^nd

appellant. Subsequently, by the order of this Court dated 08.06.2022

made in C.M.P.No.13839 of 2016, she was transposed as 3^rd respondent.

The appellant is 2^nd defendant, the 3^rd respondent is 3^rd defendant and

their father Krishnasamy Gounder was the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.166 of

2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court,

Coimbatore, filed by the respondents 1 & 2 for partition and permanent

injunction.

2.Challenging the preliminary decree granted to respondents 1 & 2

that they are entitled to 2/5^th share jointly in the suit property and

permanent injunction restraining the appellant from encumbering the

share of respondents 1 and 2, the appellant filed the present appeal.

2/43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.303 of 2016

Case of the respondents 1 & 2:

3.The respondents 1 & 2 are daughters of Krishnasamy Gounder,

the 1^st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.166 of 2012, who died pending

suit. The appellant herein is son, 3^rd respondent is another daughter of the

said Krishnasamy Gounder.

3(a).The suit properties are ancestral properties allotted to

Krishnasamy Gounder, 1^st defendant in the suit in a partition effected on

26.03.1973, between the 1^st defendant, his brothers Arumuga Gounder

and Pechiappa Gounder. In the partition deed dated 26.03.1973 it has

been stated that properties are ancestral properties. The respondents 1 &

2 are in joint possession of the suit properties as coparceners along with

1^st defendant, appellant and 3^rd respondent. The 1^st defendant was

carrying on agricultural activities and was giving share to the

respondents 1 & 2.

3(b).The respondents 1 & 2 after their marriage are residing in

their matrimonial home. They demanded the 1^st defendant to partition the

suit properties and allot their share. The 1^st defendant was avoiding

partition of suit properties. The respondents 1 & 2 came to know that the

3/43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.303 of 2016

1^st defendant is trying to create documents to deprive their interest in the

suit properties. In the 2^nd week of March 2012, the respondents 1 & 2

approached the office of the Sub Registrar, Negamam and found out that

1^st defendant by deed of sale dated 16.12.2009 bearing Document

No.2056 of 2009 alleged to have sold the suit properties to one

M.Thangavel for a sum of Rs.8,54,200/-, who is father-in-law of his son,

the appellant herein. The said M.Thangavel, by the another sale deed

dated 09.01.2012 executed the same to the appellant herein. The 1^st

defendant has no right to sell the suit properties. The respondents 1 & 2

are not parties to the said sale deed and the said sale deed is not binding

on the respondents 1 & 2. The sale is void ab-initio and respondents 1 &

2 have every right to ignore the sale deed.

3(c). Subsequently, the said M.Thangavel by the s