Daughters Born After 1956 Partition Get Shares In Father’s 1/7th Interest Under 2005 Succession Law: Madras HC Holds

The parties were members of the family of T.G. Vellaya Nadar.

Under a 1956 partition, 25 grounds of property in Chennai were retained as J-Schedule property for Vellaya Nadar and six sons; by the time the suit was filed, 4 grounds and 7 square feet—calculated by the Court as 9,607 square feet—remained

Some children were born after the partition.

Vellaya Nadar executed a settlement deed in 2006 concerning his share, and his wife, Thanalakshmi, executed a settlement deed in 2005 covering 522 square feet inherited from a deceased son.

The plaintiffs sought partition, claiming shares in the remaining property; other family members disputed their entitlement, and subsequent purchasers claimed under sale agreements made during the suit.

The Single Judge granted a preliminary decree, following which the plaintiffs, certain defendants and subsequent purchasers filed these connected appeals.

The Court applied the Hindu-law rule, stated in Bhagwat Ram v. Ramji Ram, AIR 1947 PC 140, and Mulla’s Hindu Law, that a son begotten and born after partition cannot reopen it where the father reserved a share, but may claim in the share reserved to the father.

It applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in holding that daughters born after the partition became coparceners with their father in his reserved share.

It applied Sections 8 and 15 of the Act to the devolution of the father’s and mother’s respective shares.

The Court also applied the co-ownership principle that possession by one co-owner is, in law, possession by the others.

It held that the father’s settlement could not bind the after-born coparceners insofar as it dealt with the joint-family share, while the mother’s settlement of 522 square feet was to be recognised.

The Court treated the plaintiffs and defendants as co-owners and found that the defendants had not seriously pursued the court-fee objection or rebutted the pleaded joint possession with evidence; it therefore rejected the challenge to valuation and possession.

Applying the after-born-child rule, it held that the children born after partition—including daughters, by virtue of amended Section 6—could claim in their father’s 1/7 share, but could not reopen the 1956 partition or claim coparcenary rights in the shares already allotted to the divided sons.

The father’s settlement could not defeat those rights in his joint-family share.

The Court separately accounted for the shares inherited by the parents under Sections 8 and 15, recognised the mother’s settlement of 522 square feet, and calculated the parties’ respective entitlements.

Because the purchasers acquired the property during the pending suit, their purchase did not bind the plaintiffs’ shares.

It declared that plaintiffs 1 and 3 and defendants 2, 4, 5 and 9 were each entitled to 276.55 square feet; the second plaintiff and defendant 10 to 80.49 square feet each; defendants 1, 3, 6 and 7 to 1,452.924 square feet each; and defendants 14–17 collectively to 1,452.924 square feet.

It recognised the 522-square-foot settlement in favour of defendants 4 and 7.

O.S.A. Nos. 304 and 370 of 2018 were partly allowed, O.S.A. No. 390 of 2018 was disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.