Facts
The Appellant/Plaintiff, Murugammal, daughter of Venkatesa Naicker by his first wife, filed a suit for partition claiming a 1/5th share in the suit properties against the respondents (the second wife and children of the deceased)
Source reference: p. 4The Plaintiff contended the properties were self-acquired by her father, who died intestate in 1989
Source reference: p. 4The Second Defendant/Respondent contested, asserting the properties were ancestral assets purchased from the income of a joint family nucleus
Source reference: p. 5The Trial Court decreed a 1/5th share for the Plaintiff, viewing the properties as self-acquired
Source reference: p. 7The First Appellate Court modified this to a 1/10th share, concluding the properties were ancestral
Source reference: p. 7The Plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal challenging the characterization of the property and the share allotted
Source reference: p. 8Issues
1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the appellant is entitled to only a 1/10th share of the property
Source reference: p. 82. Whether the suit properties were self-acquired or ancestral joint family properties
Source reference: p. 83. Whether the unregistered release deed (Ex-B.15) was valid to extinguish the Plaintiff's rights
Source reference: p. 13Law Applied
Section 6 (as amended by Act 39 of 2005) and Section 8 regarding intestate succession of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Source reference: p. 13-14The precedent set in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, which established that daughters have coparcenary rights by birth regardless of whether the father was alive at the time of the 2005 Amendment
Source reference: p. 14Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates the registration of documents that extinguish interest in immovable property
Source reference: p. 14Reasoning
The Court determined the properties were ancestral because the Plaintiff failed to prove independent income sources (such as a provision store) for Venkatesa Naicker, while evidence showed he held significant ancestral agricultural land producing surplus income used for subsequent acquisitions
Source reference: p. 10-11Regarding the Plaintiff's share, the Court noted she was a Hindu daughter whose father died in 1989. While she was not entitled to the Tamil Nadu Amendment (Act 1 of 1990) due to her marriage date, the Central Amendment of 2005 applied retrospectively
Source reference: p. 13-14Applying the Vineeta Sharma doctrine, the Court recognized the Plaintiff as a coparcener. Therefore, the estate was divided into five shares (one for the Plaintiff and four for the children of the second wife as coparceners). Upon the notional death of the father, his 1/5th share devolved equally among his five legal heirs (the Plaintiff, the second wife, and the three children), granting the Plaintiff an additional 1/25th share
Source reference: p. 14The Court rejected the Defendants' reliance on an unregistered release deed (Ex-B.15), holding it inadmissible under the Registration Act and suspicious in timing
Source reference: p. 14Holding
The Court partially allowed the Second Appeal, modifying the decree of the lower courts. It held that the Plaintiff is entitled to a 6/25 share (1/5 as a coparcener + 1/25 through inheritance) in the suit properties
The Court affirmed that the properties were ancestral in nature but corrected the legal calculation of shares necessitated by the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. No costs were ordered
Source reference: p. 15Original Court PDF
TMT.MURUGAMMALvsANDI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in