M. ARUMUGAM Vs. AMMANIAMMAL
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 08,2020

M. ARUMUGAM Appellant
VERSUS
AMMANIAMMAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GURUPAD KHANDAPPA MAGDUM VS. HIRABAI KHANDAPPA MAGDUM [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX KANPUR VS. CHANDER SEN [REFERRED TO]
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY (IT DEPTT) AND OTHERS VS. M. ARIFULLA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MINOR SAUMYA PRADIPKUMAR PATEL VS. SHRIMAD CONSTRUCTION [LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-1246] [REFERRED TO]
M.R. VINODA VS. M.S. SUSHEELAMMA (D) BY LRS [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-86] [REFERRED TO]
SONAJI RAGHALA CHAUDHARI VS. AKHA DIWALA CHAUDHARI [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-37] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DEEPAK GUPTA,J. - (1.)One Moola Gounder along with his two sons Palanisamy (defendant no. 1) and Arumugam (defendant no. 2) formed a coparcenary which owned the suit property. Moola Gounder died intestate on 28.12.1971 leaving behind no Will. On his death, 1/3 of the property went to each son and remaining one third which was the share of Moola Gounder in the coparcenary was to be inherited by his wife (defendant no.5), two sons, (defendant nos. 1 and 2) and three daughters viz., the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 and 4.
(2.)On 06.12.1989, his youngest daughter filed a suit claiming that the property falling to the share of Moola Gounder which was to be inherited by his six legal heirs had never been partitioned and therefore, it be partitioned in accordance with law. Written statement was filed by the two sons in which it was mentioned that after the death of Moola Gounder, the daughters i.e., the plaintiff and defendant nos. 3 and 4 and the mother (defendant no. 5) had jointly executed a registered release deed relinquishing their rights in the property in favour of the two sons, defendant nos. 1 and 2. It was also urged that in the said release deed the plaintiff who was a minor at that time was represented by her mother, who was her natural guardian, and the mother had executed the release deed on behalf of the plaintiff. Similarly, defendant no. 1 had acted as the guardian of defendant no. 2 who was also a minor at that time and signed the release deed on behalf of both of the sons. After defendant no. 2 attained majority, a registered partition deed was executed between the two brothers, defendant nos. 1 and 2, on 24.04.1980 and thereafter, it is only defendant nos. 1 and 2 who are in possession of the said property. It was also averred that the partition deed was witnessed by the husband of the plaintiff and she could not feign ignorance of the same. It was also alleged that the amount mentioned in the release deed had been given to the sisters.
(3.)A reply written statement or replication was filed by the plaintiff in which it was urged that the release deed was void under law since the mother had no right to relinquish the share of the plaintiff without sanction of the court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.