Property inherited by a son from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is absolute property.

The plaintiffs (Respondents 1 & 2) filed a suit for partition claiming a 2/3 share in the suit property, asserting it was joint family property inherited from their grandfather, Mariappa Pandaram

They alleged their father, the 3rd defendant (Arumugam), sold the western portion to Defendants 1 & 2 (Appellants) without their consent in 2000

The Defendants contended the property was the absolute property of Arumugam inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the suit was bad for non-joinder of a third sister (Seethalakshmi), and the matter was previously settled via a consent letter (Ex.B.7)

The Trial Court dismissed the suit citing non-joinder, limitation, and Ex.B.7

The First Appellate Court reversed this, holding that the impleading of the sister as a legal representative (LR) after the father's death cured the non-joinder

1. Whether the inheritance of the property by the 3rd defendant (sole son) under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act rendered it his absolute property, disentitling his daughters from claiming partition by birth?

2. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in setting aside the finding of non-joinder on the ground that the necessary party was impleaded only as an LR during the appeal?

3. Whether the suit for partition was maintainable without seeking a declaration to set aside the registered sale deeds (Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2)?

4. Whether the consent letter (Ex.B.7) filed by a power of attorney was valid and binding?

Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which governs intestate succession for a male Hindu's separate property

The landmark Supreme Court precedent Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen (1986), establishing that property inherited by a son from his father under Section 8 does not become joint family property in the son's hands vis-à-vis his own children

Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC regarding the limited power of an attorney to depose on personal knowledge

The principle from Venkush v. Baskaran that a Karta's alienation is voidable, necessitating a prayer for declaration to set aside the deed in a partition suit

The Court reasoned that since the property was the self-acquired property of the grandfather, Mariappa Pandaram, it devolved upon his only son (the 3rd defendant) as absolute property under Section 8, not as ancestral coparcenary property

Consequently, the plaintiffs acquired no right by birth

The Court found the sale by the 3rd defendant to be valid as he was the absolute owner; even if treated as a Karta, the alienation was merely voidable and remained binding as the plaintiffs failed to specifically challenge the sale deeds or prove a lack of legal necessity

Regarding procedural defects, the Court held that impleading the sister (Seethalakshmi) as an LR did not cure the original defect of non-joinder in a partition suit, as the pleadings were not properly amended to reflect her share as a primary party

The Court upheld the Trial Court's reliance on Ex.B.7, noting the plaintiffs' failure to enter the witness box to rebut the settlement reached by their attorney was fatal to their case

The High Court allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, restoring the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit

The suit was barred by limitation and maintainability for failing to challenge the registered sale deeds of 2000, and that the non-joinder of a necessary party was not cured by mere impleadment as an LR