A decree enforcing one heir’s sale agreement binds only that heir’s share.

The suit property originally belonged to Kanchamalai Achari, who died intestate leaving his wife, son Kannamani alias Kaliyaperumal, and daughter Rani Ammal, the plaintiff.

Kannamani agreed to sell the property to Mottai Gounder, who obtained a decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 112 of 1986; a court-executed sale deed followed in 1996.

Rani, who was not a party to that suit, sought partition and a declaration that its decree did not bind her.

The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed and awarded her a half share.

Mottai Gounder’s legal heirs, defendants 2–9, appealed to the High Court.

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a half share, or only a one-third share, in the suit property

Whether the decree in O.S. No. 112 of 1986 bound the plaintiff, who was not a party to that proceeding

Whether the plaintiff’s suit, filed in 2007 after the 1992 decree and the 1996 court-executed sale deed, was barred by limitation

The Court applied Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under which property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves upon his Class I heirs.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that a decree and transfer obtained in proceedings to which a co-owner was not a party could not bind that co-owner’s share; it identified no precedent for this proposition.

Because Kanchamalai Achari died intestate leaving his wife, son, and daughter, the Court held that each initially inherited one-third.

Kannamani’s agreement and the resulting court-executed sale could therefore affect only his share, not Rani’s.

The first appellate court erred in awarding Rani one-half by failing to account for Kannamani’s share, which had been sold through the specific-performance proceedings.

As to limitation, the appellants produced no proof showing when the property was delivered to Mottai Gounder; the Court accepted that Rani learned of the earlier proceedings when delivery was attempted and held her 2007 suit timely.

It modified the first appellate decree to declare Rani entitled to a one-third share and held that the decree in O.S. No. 112 of 1986 was not binding on that share.

The second substantial question concerning limitation was answered in the respondents’ favour; the appeal was allowed in part, with no order as to costs.