ANNA DURAI vs KUPPAYAMMAL DECEASED

SA No. 1049 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
SA No. 1049 of 2013
and M.P. Nos.1 of 2013 and 1 of 2015
Anna Durai S/o Muthusamy
Perumalpaayam, Elevamalai Village and Post,
Erode Taluk and District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Kuppayammal [Deceased]
Nanjappan [Deceased]
1. Ravichandaran S/o Late Muthusamy
Perumallapalayam,
Elevamalai Village And Post,
Erode Taluk and District.
2. Susila W/o Chinnasamy
Kullampalayam, Gobichettipalayam Taluk,
Erode District.
3. Poongodi W/o Jagadeesh
No.224 Vivekananda Street,
Nasiyanur Main Road
Narayanavalasu, Erode Taluk and District.
4. Sarojini W/o Balasundaram,
Kanadikarar Line House
Mettunavasuvampalayam Village
Perumalpalayam Vasavi College Via
Erode District.
5. Tamilarasi W/o N.Shanmugam
Pallapalayama Post, Konjikoil Via,
Erode District.
6. N.Thulasimani
7. N.T.Rajadurai
__________
Page 1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
8. S.Abirami
6 to 8 respondents are Sons and daughters of
Late Nanjappan
All are residing at
Vetrilaikodiankadu, Perumalpalayam,
Elevamalai Villagea and Post,
Erode District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, as
against the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Court, Erode in
A.S.No.123 of 2012 dated 11.06.2013 confirming the Judgment and Decree of
the II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode in O.S.No.45 of 2010 dated
28.09.2012.
For Appellant(s): M/s.V.P. Karthikeyan
For Respondent(s): M/s. A.Sundaravadhanam
JUDGMENT
The Second appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment
passed by the Principal District Court, Erode in A.S.No.123 of 2012 dated
11.06.2013. The appellant herein is the Plaintiff and he filed a Suit before the
trial Court in O.S. No.45 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate
Court, Erode and the said Suit was partly decreed. The trial Court granted
partition of 1/12 share over the Suit properties and dismissed the relief in
respect of declaration of settlement deeds. Aggrieved by the said decree and
__________
Page 2 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
judgment, the Plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S. No.123 of 2012 on the
file of the Principal District Judge, Erode and the same was also dismissed by
confirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the
said decree and judgment, this second appeal has been preferred by the
appellant / Plaintiff.
st
2. The case of the Plaintiff before the trial Court is that the 1 defendant
nd
is the sister of the Plaintiff’s deceased mother Masiriyammal. The 2 defendant
st
is the son of the 1 defendant. The defendants 3 to 5 are brother and sisters of
the Plaintiff. The defendants 6 and 7 are the legal heirs of the deceased
st nd
Kuppayammal, who is the 1 defendant in the Suit. The 2 defendant died
intestate during the pendency of the Suit on 19.12.2011 and hence the
defendants 8 to 10 were impleaded as parties. Originally the Suit properties
belonged to the great grand father of the Plaintiff namely Pongiya Gounder.
After the death of the said Pongiya Gounder, the property devolved on his only
son Perumal Gounder. The said Perumal Gounder died intestate and after his
demise, his wife namely Nallayammal and two daughters namely Masiriyammal
and Kuppayammal were entitled to the properties and they were in possession
and enjoyment of the properties. While so, they sold out 3 acres out of 11 acres
lef t by Perumal Gounder. The said Nallayammal, wife of Perumal Gounder
and their two daughters Masiriyammal and Kuppayammal are each entitled to
__________
Page 3 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
1/3 share in the Suit properties. The said Masiriyammal, mother of the Plaintiff
and the defendants 3 to 5, died on 06.03.2007. The Plaintiff’s father
Muthusamy also predeceased her. The said Nallyammal died on 13.10.2008.
Therefore, the parties to the Suit have been under joint possession and
st
enjoyment of the properties. The 1 defendant is entitled to 4/8 share and the
Plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 5 are each entitled to 1/8 share. When the
Plaintiff approached the defendants for amicable partition, the defendants
refused for the same and they claimed the properties through Gift Settlement
nd
Deed dated 25.07.2007 in the name of the 2 defendant and another Settlement
rd
Deed dated 25.07.2007 in the name of the 3 defendant. Further while the
Nallayammal, the Settlor, was struggling in her last days, the defendants 2 and 3
had obtained those two settlement deeds. The said Nallayammal has no right to
execute Settlement Deed, as she has no absolute right over the properties. The
Settlement Deeds were executed at compulsion and while executing the same,
she was in unsound disposing state of mind. The said Gift Settlement Deeds are
not valid and not executed in accordance with law and the said deeds are not
acted upon and they will not bind upon the Plaintiff’s right over the properties.
The Plaintiff issued a notice dated 03.02.2010 to the defendants 2 and 3
demanding partition and after receipt of the same, the defendants neither issued
a reply notice nor came forward to partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed the
Suit.
__________
Page 4 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
3. The case of the defendants before the trial Court is as follows:-
Originally the Suit property and other properties belonged to the maternal
st
grand father of the 1 defendant and they denied the possession and enjoyment
of the Plaintiff over the properties after the death of the Perumal Gounder.
After the death of the Perumal Gounder, his entire properties devolved upon his
widow wife Nallammal as his sole heir. She was in possession and enjoyment
of the entire Suit properties as absolute owner. Therefore, the daughters of
st
Perumal Gounder namely the deceased Masiriyammal and the 1 defendant
Kuppayamma, did not inherit any share in the estate of the Perumal Gounder.
nd rd
The 2 and 3 defendants looked after the said Nallayammal, thereby she
nd
executed a Settlement Deed dated 25.07.2007 in favour of the 2 defendant, by
nd
which, she gifted 1/6 share to the 2 defendant and she executed another Gift
rd
Settlement Deed dated 25.07.2007 in favour of the 3 defendant by gifting 1/6
share. At the time of execution of Settlement Deeds, the said Nallayammal was
hale and healthy and both the Settlement Deeds were validly executed, attested
and registered and the same were acted upon. The Plaintiff is well aware of the
said documents. Since the entire properties belonged to Nallayammal, she
nd rd
executed the Settlement Deeds in favour of the 2 and 3 defendants.
st
Thereafter, the said Nallayammal died on 13.10.2008 and after her death, the 1
defendant inherited ½ share of her properties and the Plaintiff and the defendant
3 to 5 have inherited ½ share, excluding the properties settled through
__________
Page 5 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
Settlement Deeds. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to declaration and
partition as prayed for. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Based on the above said pleadings and after hearing both sides, the trial
court has framed the following issues for trial:-
Issues:
1. Whether the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the Gift Settlement Deed bearing Nos.3021 of 2007
and 3022 of 2007 are true and genuine and valid and binding the
parties?
3. Whether the Plaintiff is having any right in the Suit
properties?
4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to Preliminary decree as
prayed for?
5. To what relief?
5. Before the trial court, on the side of the plaintiffs, witnesses P.W.1 and
PW2 were examined and marked exhibits, Ex.A.1 to A9. On the side of the
defendants, witnesses D.W.1 to DW4 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5
were marked. The trial court after evaluating the oral and documentary
evidences adduced on both sides and perusing the records, declined to grant
declaration and granted preliminary decree for partition of the Suit properties
__________
Page 6 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
into 12 equal shares and allotment of one such share to the Plaintiff. Aggrieved
by the said decree and judgment, the Plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S.
No.123 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Erode on various
grounds.
5.1. The First Appellate Court has framed the points for determination as
follows:-
(i) Whether the Gift Deeds executed by Nallayammal in favour of the
defendants 2 and 3 on 25.07.2007 are valid?
(ii) Whether the Suit properties are ancestral properties as contended by
the appellant?
(iii) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting
preliminary decree for partition and allotment of 1/12 share to the Plaintiff is
proper?
(iv) To what relief?
6. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, the First Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the decree and judgment passed by
the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present second
appeal has been preferred by the appellant / Plaintiff.
__________
Page 7 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
7. This Court, at the time of admitting the second appeal, formulated
the following Substantial Questions of Law :-
i) Whether the Settlement Deed can be executed by a co-parcener
regarding his undivided interest in a coparcenery property without the
consent of other coparceners?
(ii) Whether the daughter is a co-parcener after the death of her father
in a case, where, admittedly no valid partition had taken taken place till the
date of filing of the Suit?
8. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred
as plaintiffs and defendants, as referred before the trial Court.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
originally the Suit properties belonged to one Pongiya Gounder, who is great
st
grand father of the 1 defendant, through a Partition Deed dated 01.11.1939 as
‘A’ Schedule properties. The said Pongiya Gounder had one son namely
Perumal Gounder. The said Perumal Goundeer died intestate leaving behind his
wife Nallyammal and two daughters namely Masiriyammal and Kuppayammal.
The properties inherited by the said Pongiya Gounder are his ancestral
__________
Page 8 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
properties. Therefore, the after the demise of the Pongiya Gounder, the Perumal
Gounder is entitled to the share of the properties along with his two daughters
and after the demise of the Perumal Gounder, his wife Nallyammal is entitled to
the share of the properties along with her two daughters. Therefore, the
Nallyammal had no authority to executed Settlement Deeds for the joint family
co-parcener properties. Since the properties have not been divided between the
parties, after the demise of the Perumal Gounder, till the date of commencement
of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 the daughters of Perumal
Gounder namely Masiriyammal and Kuppayammal are entitled to the share by
birth. On the date of commencement of the amendment Act, the properties have
not been partitioned and the legal heirs of the Perumal Gounder were alive.
Therefore, both the daughters are equally entitled to the Suit properties. Since
the Suit properties are co-parcener joint family properties, one co-parcener
cannot execute Settlement Deed, without consulting the other co-parceners.
Therefore, Gift Settlement Deeds executed by the Nallayammal are not valid in
the eye of law. Even assuming that the Nallyammal has given her share of
properties through Settlement Deeds, it amounts to renunciation in favour of
other co-parceners, who are the daughters of Nallayammal. Therefore, the
daughters are equally entitled to the share over the Suit properties.
__________
Page 9 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
9.1. The Settlement Deeds were executed after the amendment of the
Hindu Succession Act and the mother of the Plaintiff namely Masiriyammal
died on 06.03.2007, leaving behind her legal heirs namely the Plaintiff and the
defendants 3 to 5 and the said Masiriyammal predeceased her mother
Nallayammal and after the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, the said Masiriyammal and Kuppayammal, who are
the daughters of the Perumal Gounder and Nallayammal are the co-parceners
and they have share by birth and some portions of the properties were sold by
the heirs of Perumal Gounder jointly. Therefore, the properties are joint family
properties and the defendants also admitted the properties as joint family
properties and joint possession of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Settlement Deeds
executed by the Nallayammal, each dated 25.07.2007, in favour of the
defendants 2 and 3, are void and not binding upon the share of the Plaintiff and
other defendants.
9.2. However, the trial Court failed to consider the legal position that a
co-parcener cannot execute Settlement Deed in respect of the co-parcener
properties, without the consent of the other co-parceners, granted partition in
respect of the remaining properties by dividing the properties in 3 equal shares
and allotted 1/3 share to Nallyammal and 1/3 share each to two daughters
Masiriyammal and Kuppayammal and thereafter divided the properties into 12
__________
Page 10 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
equal shares and allotted 1/12 share to the Plaintiff. The Courts below without
recording the findings about the nature and character of the properties and
without treating the properties as ancestral properties, allotted shares equally to
the Nallyammal and the two daughters of the Perumal Gounder. Since the
properties are ancestral properties and no partition has been effected till the
amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, the properties of the Perumal
Gounder were devolved upon his two daughteres as co-parceners, they are
entitled to share overe the properties by birth and the Nallyammal is entitled to
the share of the property only from the share of her husband Perumal Gounder.
These aspects have not been considered by the Courts below and as per the
verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma &
others in Civil Appeal Diary No.32601 of 2018 case, the daughters of Perumal
Gounder are co-parceners and they have right by birth and thereby, the Courts
below have rendered perverse findings and therefore, the judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that
originally the Suit properties belonged to their great grand father Pongiya
Gounder through a Partition Deed dated 01.11.1939 and thereafter, his only son
Perumal Gounder was entitled to the said properties. The said Perumal
Gounder died before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and
__________
Page 11 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
thereby, his wife Nallyammal alone is entitled to the properties of the Perumal
Gounder and his two daughters Masiriyammal and Kuppayammal have no right
over the properties. Therefore, the Suit properties are the absolute properties of
Nallyammal and she executed the Settlement Deeds in favour of the defendants
2 and 3 on 25.07.2007 and they are valid. The said Nallyammal died on
13.10.2008. Therefore, the Plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to share the
properties excluding the shares gifted by the said Nallyammal through Gift
Settlement Deeds dated 25.07.2007 in favour of the defendants 2 and 3.
Therefore the Courts below have correctly applied law and declined to grant
declaration relief in respect of Settlement Deeds and decreed the Suit in respect
of remaining properties by granting preliminary decree for partition. Therefore,
the Courts below have correctly rendered findings and there are no substantial
questions law involved in this case and hence the second appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
11. This Court heard both sides and perused the entire materials available
on record.
12. In this case, there is no dispute that the properties belonged to one
Pongiya Gounder through a Partition Deed dated 01.11.1939 and thereafter, the
said properties of Pongiya Gounder was devolved upon his only son namely
__________
Page 12 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
Perumal Gounder. The said Perumal Gounder died intestate leaving behind his
wife Nallyammal and two daughters Masiriyammal and Kuppayammal. The
Plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 5 are legal heirs of the said Masiriyammal. The
st
1 defendant is the another daughter of Perumal Gounder and Nallyammal and
nd
she died during the pendency of the proceedings. The 2 defendant also died
during the pendency of the proceedings and her legal heirs have been impleaded
as parties. According to the Plaintiff, the properties are Hindu undivided
properties. But according to the defendants, the said Perumal Gounder died
before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 and thereby, the
properties are exclusive properties of Nallyammal, who is the wife of the
Perumal Gounder. There is no evidence that the Perumal Gounder died before
the amendment of Hindu Succession Act. However, the Partition Deed is dated
01.11.1939. On that date, Perumal Gounder was born to his father Pongiya
Gounder and the Hindu Succession Act came into force in the year 1956.
Therefore, if he died before the year 1956, then his daughters Masiriyammal
and Kuppayammal would have borne before 1956, but no evidence produced to
prove the age of the parties and the date of death of the Perumal Gounder.
Therefore, we can infer that the Perumal Gounder has not died before the
commencement of Hindu Succession Act. Once the defendants have taken a
plea that Perumal Gounder died before the commencement of Hindu Succession
Act, it is for them to plead and prove the date of death of Perumal Gounder.
But there is no evidence in that regard.
__________
Page 13 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
13. Moreover it is an admitted fact that after the demise of Perumal
Gounder, his wife Nallyammal along with her two daughters executed a Sale
Deed dated 22.06.2007 in favour of one Maheswari jointly. Had the Perumal
Gounder died before the commencement of Hindu Succession Act and the
properties are absolute properties of Nallayammal after the death of Perumal
Gounder, the above said Sale Deed dated 22.06.2007 would not have executed
jointly by the legal heirs of the Perumal Gounder and the said Nallyammal
would alone have executed the sale deed. Therefore, the above said conduct of
the parties shows that the properties were treated as joint family properties and
the Nallyammal alone was not the absolute owner of the properties. Moreover,
the Nallayammal executed two Settlement Deeds each dated 25.07.2007 in
favour of the defendants 2 and 3 in respect of her 1/3 share. Therefore, she
herself admitted that her daughters are also having share over the properties.
Therefore, the contention of the defendants that the properties are absolute
properties of Nallyammal, who inherited the properties from her husband, who
died prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, cannot be
accepted.
14. Further it is an admitted fact that before the amendment of Hindu
Succession Act, 2005, the properties have not been partitioned between the
parties and as per the law laid down in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh
__________
Page 14 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
Sharma & others in Civil Appeal Diary No.32601 of 2018, after amendment of
Hindu Succession act, the daughters have also become co-parceners. There is
st
no dispute that the Suit properties were obtained by the grand father of the 1
defendant namely Pongiya Gounder through Partition between his family and he
is entitled to the properties ancestrally. Therefore, the properties obtained
ancestrally by the Pongiya Gounder, thereby, they are co-parcener properties of
the Perumal Gounder and his two daughters. Therefore, after the amendment of
Hindu Succession Act, 2005, the properties were devolved upon the daughters
of Perumal Gounder. The Perumal Gounder was entitled 1/3 share and his two
daughters are each entitled to 1/3 share. The share of the Perumal Gounder has
to be divided between his wife and two daughters. Therefore, the Nallyammal
is entitlted to 1/9 share and the two daughters Masiriyammal and Kuppayammal
are each entitled to 4/9 share over the properties of Perumal Gounder. Since the
properties are co-parcener properties and daughers of Perumal Gounder are also
entitled to each 4/9 share, the Nallayammal has no right to execute Settlement
deeds in respect of the entire properties including the shares of her daughters.
14.1. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in
N.Kalavathy v. Sriramulu Naid (Deceased) and others in A.S. No.63 of 2012,
wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court after discussing the
__________
Page 15 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thamma Venkata Subbamma v.
Thamma Rattamma and others reported in 1987 [3] SCC 294, observed that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts have uniformly held that gift
by a coparcener of his undivided coparcenery interest to another coparcener
without the consent of other coparceners is void. It is also held that it is a
renunciation in favour of one of the coparceners, such renunciation enures for
the benefit of all other coparceners and not for the sole benefit of the
coparcener in whose favour the renunciation was made and after Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters have also been given
unobstructed heritage and their entitlement to get share by birth does not
depend upon any other event, only subject to the limitations found in Section 6
of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005. Therefore, the coparcenery
exists as renunciation under the Settlement Deeds, will not extinguish the
character of property as coparcenery especially, when there is no division of
coparcenery property among the parties. When the Gift Deed or Settlement
Deed is treated as renunciation, the character of property will remain
coparcenery and the plaintiff's right as a daughter to get equal share by virtue
of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, is not affected by the Settlement
Deeds.
14.2. As far as the said judgment is concerned, it is with regard to the co-
parcener property. In this case, the Nallayammal is not a co-parcener and she,
__________
Page 16 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
being the wife of Perumal Gounder, after his demise, is entitled to the share of
her husband, whereas the daughters of Perumal Gounder are concerned, they are
entitled to the share by birth as co-parceners and they are entitled to share along
with their father Perumal Gounder and after the demise of their father, they are
entitled to share along with their mother. Therefore, the Nallayammal is a co-
sharer and not a co-parcener as she derived the share through her husband.
Therefore, there is no bar to execute the Settlement Deed by the co-sharer as she
had a definite share from her husband. As far as the co-parceners are
concerned, they cannot execute Settlement Deed in respect of co-parcener
property without the consent of other co-parceners. For example, if a co-
parcener relinquishes her to one of the co-parceners, the said relinquishment is
not only for a particular co-parcener, it is for all the co-parceners, thereby, the
share may vary, but as far as the co-owner is concerned, there may not be any
variation in the quantum of share and she got definite share, thereby, the co-
owner can execute Settlement Deed in respect of his undivided share.
14.3. Therefore, by applying the above said judgments, in the case on
hand, Nallayammal, who is wife of Perumal Gounder, is not a co-parcener and
she is only a co-owner, thereby, she can execute Settlement Deed in respect of
her share, and the said judgments are in respect of the co-parcener property,
however, the Nallayammal had no 1/3 right over the properties, and she had
only 1/9 share thereby, the Settlement Deeds cannot be executed by
__________
Page 17 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
Nallayammal, the Settlor for 1/3 share in the Suit properties. The execution of
Settlement Deed by Nallayammal are protected under Section 44 of the Transfer
of Property Act. Therefore, the settlement deeds executed by Nallayammal are
not valid in respect of shares of her daughters and thereby, the Plaintiff is
entitled to declaration in respect of Settlement Deeds as ‘not binding in respect
of the shares of daughters of Nallayammal’..
15. Since the properties were not divided between the parties, the
Plaintiff is entitled to share of their mother Masiriyammal. Though the
Nallayammal had executed Settlement Deeds for 1/3 share, she is only entitled
to 1/9 share and she could execute Settlement Deed only in respect of her 1/9
share, thereby the settlement in respect of her 1/9 share is valid. Therefore, the
Plaintiff is entitled to 1/9 share and the defendants 3 to 5 are each entitled to
1/8 share. The legal heirs of the defendants 1 and 2, namely the defendants 6
to 10, are jointly entitled to 4/8 share over the Suit properties.
0 16. The Courts below have not given findings in respect of the nature
and character of the Suit properties and without deciding the nature and
character of the properties, granted partition. The properties of Pongiya
Gounder belonged to him through Partition between his family. The Courts
ought to have rendered findings about the nature and character of the properties,
__________
Page 18 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
particularly, when the defendants pleaded that the Perumal Gounder died before
the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act. Therefore,
without declaring the nature and character of the properties, the Courts below
have rendered findings as the legal heirs of Perumal Gounder are entitled to Suit
properties and the properties are not co-parcenery properties and they are only
co-sharers. However after the judgment of courts below, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court settled the law through a judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma
& others in Civil Appeal Diary No.32601 of 2018 that the daughters are also
entitled to equal share by birth, as co-parceners of the joint family properties, if
the properties are not partitioned as on date of commencement of Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act 2005. Therefore, the judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below, without rendering findings about the nature and
character of the properties and without considering that the properties are co-
parcener properties. Therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below are perverse and the same are liable to be set aside. Thus, the substantial
questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and as against the
respondents.
17. Therefore, in view of the above said discussions and answers to the
substantial questions of law, this Court is of the opinion that the judgments and
decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
__________
Page 19 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
18. Accordingly, the Second appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and
decree of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Erode in O.S.No.45 of 2010
dated 28.09.2012 confirmed by the judgment and decre of the Principal District
Court, Erode in A.S.No.123 of 2012 dated 11.06.2013, are set aside. The Suit
in O.S. No.45 of 2010 is partly decreed. The two Settlement Deeds dated
nd rd
25.07.2007 in favour of the 2 and 3 defendants executed by Nallayammal are
not binding upon the shares of her daughters and the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/9
share over the Suit properties and the Preliminary decree is passed to the effect
that the properties are ordered to be divided into 8 shares and allot one such
share ie., 1/8 share to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is entitled to final decree as per
law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12-08-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MJS
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Erode.
2. The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.
__________
Page 20 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

SA No. 1049 of 2013
P.DHANABAL, J.
MJS
SA No. 1049 of 2013
12-08-2026
__________
Page 21 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

S.A.No.1049 of 2013
S.A.No.1049 of 2013
P. DHANABAL, J.
Today, this matter is listed under the caption for “being mentioned” at the
instance of the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents brought to the knowledge of
this Court that in the judgment dated 12.08.2026 passed in S.A.No.1049 of
2013, in para Nos.15 & 18, the entitlement of share has been wrongly
mentioned as “1/8 share” and “4/8 share” instead of “1/9 share” and “4/9
share”.
3. Heard both sides. This Court having verified the same from the
records, is convinced that there are some typographical errors in mentioning the
entitlement of shares as stated above.
4. In the light of the above, Registry shall substitute the entitlement of
share as “1/9 share” in place of “1/8 share” and “4/9 share” in place of “4/8
share”, in paragraph Nos.15 and 18 of the judgment dated 12.08.2026.
5. Similarly in paragraph No.18, the division of share of “8” shall be
corrected and substituted as “9”. Except the same, all other aspects shall remain
22/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

S.A.No.1049 of 2013
intact.
6. Registry is directed to carry out the necessary corrections and issue a
fresh certified copies to the parties concerned.
30.10.2026
jd
23/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )

S.A.No.1049 of 2013
P. DHANABAL, J.
jd
S.A.No.1049 of 2013
30.10.2026
24/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:45 pm )