Father Death before 1989 - Unmarried daughter, cannot claim to be a coparcener in the same manner as a son as on the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act.

Citation

CDJ 2007 MHC 3851

2007(5) CTC 42

Bachaya vs pongiannan

Head note

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Hindu Succession Act - Section 6, 29-A - The points for determination in this appeal are - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit conferred in Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1/1990 - 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for partition as prayed for - The law is settled that if the partition had been effected before the Amendment Act came into force, the daughter even though unmarried, is not entitled for a share in the family property. It is seen that in the cases decided by the Apex Court and by the Division Bench of this Court, the daughter of a coparcener became a coparcener in her own right, since the coparcener was alive on the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act and in those circumstances, when a partition was not effected, it is held that unmarried daughter shall become coparcener in the same manner as a son. In the present case, Palani Gounder died on 27.3.1975, well before the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1/1990, namely, 25.3.1989 and hence the plaintiff, viz., his unmarried daughter, cannot claim to be a coparcener in the same manner as a son as on the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act. The finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit conferred in Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1/1990, is correct and proper. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree for partition as prayed for. The Points are answered against the appellant - dismissed.

Comparative Citation:
2007 (5) CTC 42, 2007 (6) MLJ 787

#partition
#unmarrieddaughter
#coparcenar