Madras High Court
V.J. Deenadayalan vs Jayamani
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on Delivered on
23.01.2025 24.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
A.S.Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
and MP Nos.1 and 1 of 2013
and CMP No.
AS No.240 of 2013
1. V.J. Deenadayalan
2. V.J. Prabhu Kumar ... Appellants
vs.
1. Jayamani
2. Rukmani
3. Palaniammal (Died)
4. Vinodh Prabakaran
5. Pravena
6. Saraswathi ... Respondents
R3 Died, R6 is brought on record as LR's
of deceased R3 vide order of Court dated
31.10.2023 made in CMP No.6440/2022
in AS No.240 of 2013 [RSMJ and NSJ]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
Prayer in AS No.240/2013: This appeal is filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the decree and judgment dated
08.03.2013 passed in OS No.13 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the III
Additional District Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.
For Appellants : Mr.T. Muruga Manickam
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran, for 1, 2, 4 and 5
R6 – No appearance and R3 – Died
AS No.267 of 2013
1. V.A.Rukmani
2. E. Jayamani ... Appellants
vs.
1. Palaniammal
2. V.A. Jayabalan (Died)
3. V.G.Deenathayalan
4. V.J.Prabhukumar
5. Saraswathi ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
R5 brought on record as LR's
of deceased 2nd Respondent viz (V.A.Jayabalan)
vide Court order dated 10.03.2022 made
in CMP No.17131 of 2019 in
AS No.267 of 2013 (MKKSJ & VSGJ)
Prayer in AS No.267/2013: This appeal is filed under Order 41 Rule 1
read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the
decree and judgment dated 08.03.2013 made in OS. No.11 of 2007 on the
file of the III Additional District Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.
For Appellants : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Respondent : Mr.T. Muruga Manickam, for 3 and 4
RR1 & 5 – no appearance and R2 – Died
*****
COMMON JUDGEMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
Challenge in these Appeals is to the common judgment of the III
Additional District Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam in OS Nos.11 and
13 of 2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
2. While AS No.240 of 2013 is by the plaintiffs in OS No.13 of
2007, AS No.267 of 2013 is by the plaintiffs in OS No.11 of 2007. In the
suit in OS No.11 of 2007, the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of
V.P.Appachi Gounder and Palaniammal, sought for partition and separate
possession of their 5/16th share each in the suit properties and for
delivery of possession. They had inter alia contended that their father
Appachi Gounder was allotted several income yielding landed properties
at a partition between him and his father Palani Gounder that took place
on 20.09.1950.
3. Out of the income earned from the said lands, Appachi Gounder
had purchased several other items of lands and the lands that were
allotted to Appachi Gounder at the partition and the lands that were
purchased by him out of the income from the ancestral nucleus were
shown as ‘A’ Schedule Properties. Appachi Gounder also purchased
several properties in the name of the second defendant who is his only
son. Those properties that were purchased by Appachi Gounder in the
name of his son / the second defendant under Exhibits A8 to A15 were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
shown as ‘B’ Schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, on the
death of Appachi Gounder on 13.03.2006, the plaintiffs, as coparceners,
would be entitled to an equal share as that of the son. Therefore, they
claimed a 5/16th share each in the suit properties.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The second defendant
filed a separate written statement contending that the properties that are
allotted to Appachi Gounder at the partition did not yield any notable
income that would have contributed for the purchase of the other
properties. Appachi Gounder served as a Village Munsif for several
years. The second defendant who discontinued his education at the age
of 11 managed the entire family, as the father Appachi Gounder was
working as a Village Munsif. His maternal grandfather Kandappa
Gounder had purchased 2 acres 4 cents of land in the name of the second
defendant in 1968 and therefore, the land that is situate in Pudukarai
Village measuring about 2 acres 4 cents is his separate property. A claim
was made to the effect that the second defendant became divided from
Appachi Gounder even in the year 1980.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
5. The claim that the entire suit ‘B’ Schedule Properties were
purchased from and out of the joint family income was stoutly denied. It
was also contended that the Income earned from the properties were
expended for celebrating the marriages of the plaintiffs. It was also
contended that certain properties were purchased by Appachi Gounder in
the name of his daughters viz. the plaintiffs also and the non-inclusion of
those properties would render the suit bad for partial partition.
6. An extent of 80 cents of land was also purchased by Appachi
Gounder on 22.04.1977 in the name of the first defendant Palaniammal
and those lands should also be included in the suit for partition. He also
contended that Appachi Gounder had executed a Will on 21.11.1990
bequeathing the properties to the second defendant and he has also
executed a Settlement Deed on 06.03.2006 in favour of defendants
3 and 4. Therefore, the second defendant sought for dismissal of the
Partition suit. The first defendant Palaniammal filed a written statement
supporting the cause of the plaintiffs. She also claimed that the
properties that were purchased in her name belonged to her absolutely.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
7. Not content with defending the suit for partition, the sons of the
second defendant, who were cited as defendants 3 and 4, laid a separate
suit in OS No.11 of 2007, for declaration that they are the owners of the
suit properties which form part of the ‘A’ Schedule properties in OS
No.11 of 2007 as items 3 and 4 of ‘A’ Schedule, pursuant to the
Settlement Deed dated 06.03.2006 executed by Appachi Gounder.
8. This suit was defended by the defendants contending that the
Settlement Deed is a document that was brought about by force and
therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. It was also contended
that the suit itself is a design by the second defendant in OS No.11 of
2007, who is the father of the plaintiffs in OS No.13 of 2007. It was also
contended that the Settlement Deed dated 06.03.2006 is void ab initio
and the same will not confer any title on the plaintiffs.
9. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed in OS
No.11 of 2007:
1/ jhthr; brhj;Jf;fs; thjpfs; kw;Wk; 2k;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
gpujpthjpapd; Tl;Lf;FLk;gr; brhj;J vd;gJ
cz;ikah>
2/ mg;ghr;rpf;ft[z;lh; fle;j 10/6/1999 Mk;
njjp thjpfSf;F capy; vGjp itj;jJ 2k;
gpujpthjpiaf; fl;Lg;gLj;jhJ vd;gJ cz;ikah>
3/ thjpfs; jhthtp;y nfhhpa[s;sthW
ghfg;gphptpid nfhu chpika[s;sjh>
4/ thjpf;Ff; fpilf;f ntz;oa ,ju
ghpfhuk; vd;d>
and the additional issues were also framed on 21.02.2001:
1/ gpujpthjpfs; jh';fs;jhf;fy; bra;Js;s
TLjy; gjpYiuapy; Twpa[s;s ft[dl; h; fpsak;
counter claim bgw chpika[z;lh>
2/ 2k; gpujpthjp jhf;fy; bra;Js;s TLjy;
gjpYiuapy; Twpa[s;sJ nghy; jhd; nk$uhd
cly; (mjhtJ) $^d; 1980 Mk; njjp jhd;
jdpahf jhDk;. mg;ghr;rp ft[zl; Uk; gphpe;J
mDgtpj;J tUtjhff; TWtJ rhpjhdh>
The following issues were framed in OS NO.13 of 2007:
1/ thjpfs; jhthtpy; nfhhpa[s;sthW
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
tpsk;gi
[ fg; ghpfhuk; bgw chpika[z;lh>
2/ thjpfs; jhthtpy; nfhhpa[s;sthW
epue;ju jil cj;jut[ bgw chpik cz;lh>
3/ jhthtpy; mtrpakhd jug;gpdh;fis
nrh;f;fhj fhuzj;jhy; jhth ghjpf;fg;gLfpdw; jh>
4/ mg;ghr;rpf;ft[z;lhplkpUe;J Vkhw;wp jhd;
brl;oy;bkd;l; vGjpf;bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;gJ
cz;ikah>
5/ thjpfSf;F fpilf;f ntz;oa kw;w
ghpfhu';fs; vd;d>
10. At trial, the first plaintiff in OS No.11 of 2007 viz. the
partition suit was examined as P.W.1 and three other witnesses were
examined as P.Ws. 2 to 4. The first defendant in the said suit Jayabalan
was examined as D.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined as
D.Ws. 2 and 3. While Exhibits A1 to A26 were marked on the side of the
plaintiffs and Exhibits B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the
defendants. Exhibits C1 to C4 viz. the copies of the Salary Register of
Appachi Gounder were marked as Exhibits C1 to C4.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
11. On the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge concluded
that the suit properties are ancestral properties. He, however, dismissed
the suit on the ground that it is bad for partial partition, as the properties
that were purchased in the name of the daughters viz. the plaintiffs in OS
No.11 of 2007 have not been made subject matter of the Partition Suit.
12. As regards the claim for declaration, the learned Trial Judge
found that since the properties were ancestral properties, Appachi
Gounder had no right to settle the said properties in favour of the
plaintiffs in OS No.13 of 2007. It was also concluded the Will dated
10.06.1999 will not bind the second defendant and the Will said to have
been executed by Appachi Gounder in favour of the second defendant in
the Partition Suit on 21.11.1990 will also not bind the plaintiffs in the
partition suit. As a result of the above findings, the learned Trial Judge
dismissed both the suits leading to these Appeals.
13. We have heard Mr. T.Muruga Manickam, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Mr. Govi Ganesan, for the appellants in AS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
No.240 of 2013 and respondents 3 and 4 in AS No.267 of 2013 and
Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in AS
No.267 of 2013 and the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 in AS No.240 of 2013.
14. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
in AS No.267 of 2013 viz. the daughters would vehemently contend that
the Trial Court was not right in dismissing the suit for partition on the
ground that it is bad for partial partition without considering the
provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
which create a presumption that the properties are purchased in the name
of unmarried daughters are presumed to be for their benefit. The learned
counsel would also point out that non-inclusion of such properties will
not affect the suit for partition. He would further contend that having
held that the properties in Schedules 'A' and 'B' are ancestral in nature,
the Trial Court was not right in dismissing the suit for partition.
15. Mr. T.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondents in AS No.267 of 2013 viz. the son and grandsons of Appachi
Gounder would submit that the Trial Court was not right in its conclusion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
that the properties purchased in the name of the second defendant
Jayabalan, were also purchased from and out of the ancestral nucleus.
The learned counsel would also point out that the Trial Court was not
right in rejecting the Will and the Settlement Deed which were marked as
Exs.B1 and B4.
16. On the above contentions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the following points emerge for determination in the Appeals.
(1) Whether the properties described in ‘A’ and ‘B’
Schedules to the suit in OS No.11 of 2007 could be
termed as ancestral properties, in which the
daughters of Appachi Gounder would acquire a right
by birth;
(2) Whether the non-inclusion of the properties
purchased in the name of the daughters by Appachi
Gounder is fatal to the suit for partition;
(3) Whether the Wills dated 21.11.1990 and 10.06.1999
have been proved in accordance with law;
(4) Whether the Settlement Deed dated 06.03.2006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
(Ex.A17) is valid; and
(5) What is the share, the plaintiffs in OS No.11 of 2007
would be entitled to?
17. After hearing the Appeals, we had reserved orders on
04.11.2024, thereafter the plaintiffs in OS No.11 of 2007 had filed an
application in CMP No.26357 of 2024 seeking amendment of the plaint
to include the properties that were purchased in the name of the
daughters as item Nos.6 and 7 of ‘B’ Schedule and some other properties
that were purchased in the name of Jayabalan the 2nd defendant as ‘C’
Schedule properties. Palaniammal wife of Appachi Gounder died
pending the Appeals. The second defendant in OS No.11 of 2007
Jayabalan also died pending Appeal and his wife was brought on record
as the fifth respondent.
18. The application for amendment was allowed by us on
16.12.2024 and thereafter we heard the appeals again on merits.
(6) After the amendment was allowed yet another point
that would arise for consideration is what is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
extent of the presumption under Section 4 of the
Prohibition of Benami PropertyTransactions Act,
1988
Point No.1:
19. The Trial Court has, on a consideration of the evidence on
record, reached a conclusion that the properties are all ancestral
properties. The fact that there was a partition between Palani Gounder
and Appachi Gounder in the year 1950 is admitted. The fact that
Appachi Gounder was allotted certain properties at the said partition is
also admitted. Except contending that Appachi Gounder worked as a
Village Munsif, the second defendant, who seeks to claim independent
title, has not let in any evidence to establish that Appachi Gounder had
separate income and he had purchased his properties out of the said
income. In fact the theory projected by the second defendant, the son of
Appachi Gounder, that he dropped out of School at the age 11 and he
started looking after the lands, is wholly unbelievable.
19.1. A perusal of Exhibits C1 to C4 would show that Appachi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
Gounder was only working as a temporary Village Munsif and was paid
only about four rupees per day as salary and therefore, it is highly
unlikely that the said salary formed the nucleus for purchase of the
properties. Apart from the above D.W.2, the attesting witness to the
Settlement Deed executed by Appachi Gounder has also spoken about the
fact that Appachi Gounder was allotted lands at the partition between him
and his father and he was cultivating the same.
19.2. Despite its best efforts, Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in AS No.240 of 2013 is
unable to make out a case for interference with the finding that the
properties are ancestral properties. Moreover, the second defendant in
OS No.11 of 2007 viz. Jayabalan, son of Appachi Gounder has not
chosen to challenge the finding in OS No.11 of 2007 that the suit
properties are ancestral properties. In the light of the above, we have no
other option but to confirm the findings of the Trial Court on the nature
of the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
Point Nos.2 and 6:
20. An attempt is made to justify the non-inclusion of the
properties purchased in the name of the daughters in the suit for partition
contending that the presumption under Section 4 of the Prohibition of
Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 would apply and those
properties would be presumed to be properties purchased for the benefit
of the daughters. Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Prohibition of
Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, prohibits a person from
entering into a benami transaction. Sub Section 2 of Section 3 the
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, carves out an
exception and enables the person to buy properties in the name of his
wife or unmarried daughter and once such properties are purchased in the
name of the wife or unmarried daughter. The provision enacts a
rebuttable presumption to the effect that the properties were purchased
for the benefit of the wife or unmarried daughter. The presumption being
a statutory presumption is a rebuttable presumption.
20.1. The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
was enacted in the year 1988 subsequently, the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 was amended in the year 2005 making daughters as coparceners.
Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
bars a suit or a claim to enforce a right in respect of a property held
benami. Sub Section 3 of Section 4 of the Prohibition of Benami
Property Transactions Act, 1988 again carves out an exception and
permits suits for recovery of properties held in the name of a coparcener
in a Hindu undivided family. Therefore, a daughter in whose name the
properties were purchased by the father becomes a coparcener on
enactment of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 39 of 2005.
20.2. Once the daughter becomes a coparcener by virtue of the
amendment of the substantial enactment viz. the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 the presumption enacted under Section 3 of the Prohibition of
Benami PropertyTransactions Act, 1988 will have to necessarily take the
back seat. Therefore, it will not be open for daughters in whose names
the properties have been purchased by the father to contend that those
properties are outside the scope of a suit for partition invoking the
presumption enacted by Section 3 of the Prohibition of Benami
PropertyTransactions Act, 1988. Probably that is the reason why the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 was amended
extensively and the exceptions carved out by Sections 3 and 4 were
removed from the Act, by the Amending Act, 43 of 2016.
20.3. By the Amending Act, 43 of 2016, the definition of a Benami
Transactions has been widened and the same reads as follows:
“(9) “benami transaction” means,—
(A) a transaction or an arrangement—
(a) where a property is transferred to, or is
held by, a person, and the consideration for such
property has been provided, or paid by, another
person; and
(b) the property is held for the immediate or
future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who
has provided the consideration, except when the
property is held by—
(i) a Karta, or a member of a Hindu undivided
family, as the case may be, and the property is held
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
for his benefit or benefit of other members in the
family and the consideration for such property has
been provided or paid out of the known sources of the
Hindu undivided family;
(ii) a person standing in a fiduciary capacity
for the benefit of another person towards whom he
stands in such capacity and includes a trustee,
executor, partner, director of a company, a depository
or a participant as an agent of a depository under the
Depositories Act, 1996 (22 of 1996) and any other
person as may be notified by the Central Government
for this purpose;
(iii) any person being an individual in the
name of his spouse or in the name of any child of
such individual and the consideration for such
property has been provided or paid out of the known
sources of the individual;
(iv) any person in the name of his brother or
sister or lineal ascendant or descendant, where the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
names of brother or sister or lineal ascendant or
descendant and the individual appear as joint owners
in any document, and the consideration for such
property has been provided or paid out of the known
sources of the individual; or
(B) a transaction or an arrangement in respect
of a property carried out or made in a fictitious name;
or
(C) a transaction or an arrangement in respect
of a property where the owner of the property is not
aware of, or, denies knowledge of, such ownership;
(D) a transaction or an arrangement in respect
of a property where the person providing the
consideration is not traceable or is fictitious;
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is
hereby declared that benami transaction shall not
include any transaction involving the allowing of
possession of any property to be taken or retained in
part performance of a contract referred to in section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882),
if, under any law for the time being in force,—
(i) consideration for such property has been
provided by the person to whom possession of
property has been allowed but the person who has
granted possession thereof continues to hold
ownership of such property;
(ii) stamp duty on such transaction or
arrangement has been paid; and
(iii) the contract has been registered.”
20.4. From the above definition, it could be seen that the statutory
presumption enacted by the 1988 Act, now stands abrogated. Therefore,
we find that the Trial Court was right in concluding that the non-
inclusion of the properties that stood in the name of the daughters viz. the
plaintiffs in the suit for partition is fatal to the suit. However, as we have
pointed out earlier those properties have also been made subject matter of
the suit by filing an Application for amendment in CMP No.26357 of
2024 and the said amendment has also been allowed and therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
defect stands cured.
Point No.3:
21. Both the parties have set up two different Wills. While the
plaintiffs would rely upon a Will of the year 1999 which has been marked
as Ex.A16, the second defendant would rely on a Will dated 21.11.1990
marked as Ex.B1. While Ex.A16 is a registered document, Ex.B1 is an
unregistered Will. The plaintiffs have examined P.W.2, the attesting
witness to the Will dated 10.06.1999. The Trial Court has excluded the
Wills on the ground that the properties have been held to be joint family
properties. The Trial Court, as rightly pointed by Mr.Manoharan, has
overlooked Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 which enables
the Male Hindu to dispose of his interest in the co-parcenary property by
way of a Will.
21.1. We have examined the evidence of the attesting witnesses of
both the wills. P.W.2 is the attesting witness to Ex.A16, though it is a
registered Will, it is incumbent upon the propounders viz. the plaintiffs in
the partition suit to prove the Will in accordance with Section 68 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
Indian Evidence Act. The evidence of P.W.2 to say the least is wholly
insufficient and it does not comply with the requirements of Section 68
of the Evidence Act. The attesting witness had very categorically
deposed that Appachi Gounder had not executed the Will out of his own
volition. Even in the chief-examination, he has not stated that he saw
Appachi Gounder affixing a signature to the Will. In cross-examination
he has specifically stated as follows:
“///khkhtplk; <!;tud; jd; kidtpf;F brhj;J
vGjpitf;fntz;Lk; vd;Wk; ,y;iybad;why; ehd;
Jujp tpLntd; vd;Wk; mjw;F gae;J
bfhz;Ljhd; vGjpitj;jhh; vd;W brhd;dhy;
rhpjhd;/ ///”
21.2. This portion of the evidence by itself demonstrates that the
Will dated 14.11.1999 said to have been executed by Appachi Gounder
in favour of the plaintiffs in OS No.11 of 2007 was not executed out of
his own free will and therefore, the same is not a valid document.
21.3. Adverting to the Will dated 21.11.1990 scribe of the said
document has been examined as D.W.3. The document is an unregistered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
Will. Of course D.W.3 has filed a proof affidavit, wherein he has stated
the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, but however in his
cross-examination he has admitted that Palaniammal and Appachi
Gounder had filed suits against him and they have obtained decrees
against him.
21.4. Apart from the above, the attesting witnesses to the document
have not been examined. It is claimed that they are dead, no evidence
has been produced to show that they are actually dead. Even in the proof
affidavit, D.W.3 Palanisamy has not given the date of death of the
attesting witnesses. The evidence of D.W.3 does not inspire the
confidence of the Court. If a propounder of a Will seeks to take
advantage of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, he will have to necessarily
establish that the attesting witnesses are either dead or cannot be brought
before Court at a reasonable expense. There is no evidence to that effect
and hence the attempt of the second defendant to prove the Will under
Section 69 of the Evidence Act cannot be permitted. We therefore,
conclude that the Will dated 21.11.1990 has also not been proved in
accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
Point No.4:
22. This relates to the Settlement Deed said to have executed by
Appachi Gounder in favour of the plaintiffs in OS No.13 of 2007. The
said instrument is dated 06.03.2006, we have affirmed the findings of the
Trial Court with the properties are coparcenery properties. Therefore, the
Appachi Gounder had no absolute right over the properties. Upon
enactment of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 39 of 2005, the
daughters have also become coparceners. Therefore, Appachi Gounder
had only 1/4th share in the suit properties and he had no right to settle the
entire property in favour of his grandsons.
22.1. While a coparcener is permitted to deal with his share in the
property by way of a testamentary instrument gifting away of a property
by a coparcener unless it is made in expectation of marriage is not
permitted. Even that gift made in expectation of the marriage should be
only a reasonable portion of the property. Hence, we affirm the findings
of the Trial Court that the Settlement Deed dated 06.03.2006 is invalid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
Point No.5:
23. From the discussion above, we have reached the conclusion
that the properties described in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ including items 6
and 7 of ‘B’ Schedule and C schedule which has been included by way of
amendment or ancestral properties belonging to Appachi Gounder and
his family. The plaintiffs and the second defendant are the coparceners at
the time of the death of Appachi Gounder in 2006. Therefore, the
plaintiffs, the second defendant and Appachi Gounder, who each be
entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties.
23.1. On the death of Appachi Gounder, his 1/4th share would
devolve on his wife the first defendant and the children, the plaintiffs and
the second defendant. Therefore the plaintiff would each be entitled to
5/16th share and the second defendant would be entitled to a 5/16th share,
the remaining 1/16th share would go the first defendant.
23.2. On the death of the first defendant, the said 1/16th share
would devolve again on the plaintiffs and the second defendant. Each of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
26/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
them would get 1/48th share, if that 1/48th share is added to the 5/16
which they already possess, the plaintiffs and the second defendant
would each be entitled to 16/48th equivalent to 1/3rd share. Therefore,
the plaintiffs and the first defendant would each be entitled to 1/3rd share
in the suit ‘A’,‘B’ and ‘C’ Schedule properties.
24. In fine, the Appeal in AS No.267 of 2013 is allowed and the
suit in OS No.11 of 2007 will stand decreed declaring that the plaintiffs
and the second defendant are each entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit ‘A’,
‘B’ and ‘C’ Schedule properties to the said suit. AS No.240 of 2013 will
stand dismissed confirming the judgment and decree in OS No.13 of
2007. Considering the relationship between the parties, the parties will
bear their own costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J .) (C.KUMARAPPAN, J.)
24.02.2025
jv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
To
1. The III Additional District Court,
Erode at Gobichettipalayam.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28/29
AS Nos.240 and 267 of 2013
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
jv A.S.Nos.240 and 267 of 2013 and MP Nos.1 and 1 of 2013 24.02.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29/29