When a male has son, sons son or sons sons son in existence at the time of inheritance they become entitled to an interest - son born after inheritance not claimed partition
Parties
P. Vijayalakshmi Versus P. Susheela & Others
Date Of Decision
27-09-2012
Judges
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
Appearing Advocates
For the Appellant: S.L. Sudarsanam, Advocate. For the Respondents: V. Lakshmi Narayan, Advocate.
Court
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code � Section 96 � Hindu Succession Act � Section 6 � Hindu Succession Amendment Act 1989 � Section 29A to Section 29C � plaintiff filed an appeal against the Judgment � plaintiff filed a partition suit for seeking 1/3 share � Lower court held that Section 6(5) of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 shall not apply to the present partition � Lower court also held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6 share only submission against the order is that the Amendment Act has retrospective effect � It was absolute property and entitled to equal share.
(Para 6 and 8).
Hindu Succession Act (Prior Amendment) � Section 6 � interest of the deceased in the mitakshara copercenary property shall devolve by testamentary � shall not be devolved by survivorship.
(Para 17).
Hindu Succession Act (TamilNadu Amendment) Act, 1989 � Section 29A to 29C � Hindu family governed by mitakshara law, daughter of coparcener is equally treated as son � effect has been taken away in respect of daughter�s marriage before the commencement of this Act.
(Para 19).
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Section 6 Daughter of a copercenary shall by birth has right as the son she subject to same liabilities as son Daughter shall be allotted the same share as is allotted to a son Partition means any partition made by execution of a deed partition duly registered under the Registration Ac, 1908.
(Para 21).
Court held When a male has son, sons son or sons sons son in existence at the time of inheritance they become entitled to an interest plaintiff is not right in contending that the suit properties were absolute properties inclusion of plaintiff as one of the vendor does not amount to acknowledge her 1/3 share interest in the mitakshara property shall devolve by testamentary not by survivorship Section 6(5) after amendment stipulates any partition made by partition deed duly registered In the present case notional partition was effected plaintiff got married in 1981 -1982 As per the law then in force, plaintiff is not entitled to claim share It is entitled to 1/3 share It is entitled to 1/3 share out of her father is share ie. 1/6 share Lower court correctly concluded Appeal is dismissed.
(Para 13, 15, 22, 27 and 29).
Cases Referred:
1. Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another v. Chakiri Yanadi and another; (2011) 9 SCC 788
2. Sheela Devi and others v. Lal Chand and another; (2007) 1 MLJ 797 (SC)
3. Angammal and another v. C.Sellamuthu and another; (2008) 1 MLJ 560
Comparative Citation:
2012 (5) LW 378
(Para 6 and 8).
Hindu Succession Act (Prior Amendment) � Section 6 � interest of the deceased in the mitakshara copercenary property shall devolve by testamentary � shall not be devolved by survivorship.
(Para 17).
Hindu Succession Act (TamilNadu Amendment) Act, 1989 � Section 29A to 29C � Hindu family governed by mitakshara law, daughter of coparcener is equally treated as son � effect has been taken away in respect of daughter�s marriage before the commencement of this Act.
(Para 19).
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Section 6 Daughter of a copercenary shall by birth has right as the son she subject to same liabilities as son Daughter shall be allotted the same share as is allotted to a son Partition means any partition made by execution of a deed partition duly registered under the Registration Ac, 1908.
(Para 21).
Court held When a male has son, sons son or sons sons son in existence at the time of inheritance they become entitled to an interest plaintiff is not right in contending that the suit properties were absolute properties inclusion of plaintiff as one of the vendor does not amount to acknowledge her 1/3 share interest in the mitakshara property shall devolve by testamentary not by survivorship Section 6(5) after amendment stipulates any partition made by partition deed duly registered In the present case notional partition was effected plaintiff got married in 1981 -1982 As per the law then in force, plaintiff is not entitled to claim share It is entitled to 1/3 share It is entitled to 1/3 share out of her father is share ie. 1/6 share Lower court correctly concluded Appeal is dismissed.
(Para 13, 15, 22, 27 and 29).
Cases Referred:
1. Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another v. Chakiri Yanadi and another; (2011) 9 SCC 788
2. Sheela Devi and others v. Lal Chand and another; (2007) 1 MLJ 797 (SC)
3. Angammal and another v. C.Sellamuthu and another; (2008) 1 MLJ 560
Comparative Citation:
2012 (5) LW 378
Comments
Post a Comment