R. MAHALAKSHMI Vs. A. KANCHANA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
L.NAGESWARA RAO,J. -
(1.) LEAVE granted. The Appellant is the Fourth defendant in O.S. No. 666 of 2001 filed by her brother Sri A. V. Venkataraman for partition
and allotment of a share of 6/20 in the property in the Court of
Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. Defendants No. 1
to 3 are the sisters of the Appellant. It was averred in the plaint
that the suit property was an ancestral property inherited by the
father of the Plaintiff, Sri A.V. Venkataraman, by a partition
deed dated 27.04.1954. Sri A.V. Venkataraman died in 1961
leaving his wife Smt. A.V. Rathnabai, the Plaintiff and the
defendants. According to the Plaintiff he was entitled to a share
of 6/20, the Second and Fourth defendants 6/20 share each and
First and Third defendants 1/20 share each of the suit property.
Section 29 A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment)
Act, 1989 was inserted w.e.f. 15.03.1989 by which the daughter
of a coparcener shall by birth became a coparcener in her own
right in the same manner as a son and was given the same rights
in the coparcenery property which the son had. Defendants 1
and 3 married prior to the amendment and so they were entitled
to 1/20 share. The Appellant married after the amendment and
Defendant No.2 did not marry as she was paralyzed in an
accident due to which they were entitled to 6/20 share. The
Appellant filed a written statement claiming a share of 36/90.
(2.) THE Additional Sub Judge, Chengalpattu by his judgment dated 27.07.2004 decreed the suit holding that the Plaintiff, the
Second Defendant and the Fourth defendant (Appellant) were
entitled to a share of 6/20 each and First and Third defendants
were entitled to a share of 1/20 each in the suit property. The
Appellant preferred A.S. No. 39 of 2006 in which she stated that
the Plaintiff omitted other properties which were available for
partition and that the suit for partial partition was bad in law.
The Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu dismissed A. S. No.39
of 2006 by a judgment dated 20.11.2006. The Appellant
approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras by filing
Second Appeal No.1168 of 2007 which was also dismissed on
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the High Court, the Appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 5053 of 2009 which was allowed by this
Court by a judgment dated 03.08.2009. This Court examined
the scope of Section 29 A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu
Amendment) Act, 1989 and held that the daughters who got
married after 1989 would have equal share as that of a son.
After a critical examination of the registered deed of partition,
this Court held that all the immovable properties inherited by Sri
A.V. Venkataraman were not included in the suit schedule.
Finally, this Court remitted the matter to the Trial Court for the
reason that all the properties which were inherited by the
Appellant's father by virtue of the registered deed of partition
dated 27.04.1954 were not included in the suit schedule.
The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu by his judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed a preliminary decree holding
that the Appellant is entitled to 1/4 share of the suit
property(house) and that the Plaintiff is entitled to remaining 3/4
share. The above judgment was passed by the Trial Court on
re-examination of the material on record after finding that there
was no documentary proof of availability of any additional assets
for partition. It is relevant to mention that the original Plaintiff,
A. V. Anantharaman, died on 20.04.2010 during the pendency of
O.S. No. 666 of 2001. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 herein were
brought on record as LRs of the original Plaintiff on 21.07.2010
as Plaintiffs No. 2, 3 and 4.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.