Madras High Court
Subbiah vs Subbiah Naicker (Died) on 8 March, 2022
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
S.A.No.324 of 2003
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2022
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
S.A.No.324 of 2003
Subbiah ...Appellant/Appellant / plaintiff
Vs.
1.Subbiah Naicker (Died)
2.A.S.A.Radhakrishna Raja
3.S.Ramalakshmi
4.S.Saravanakumar
5.S.Pothiraj
6.S.Mahesh
7.R.Sagunthalai ...Respondents
/Respondents/ Defendants
[Respondents 3 to 7 are brought on record
as Lrs of the deceased 1st respondent vide
Court order dated 05.01.2022 made in
CMP(MD)Nos.10821 to 10823 in S.A.No.324
of 2003]
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as against the judgment
and decree dated 23.01.2002 in A.S.No.38 of 2001, before
the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil confirming the
judgment and decree dated 25.04.2001 in O.S.No.36 of
1997,before the Principal District Munsif, Sankarankoil.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Muthu Geethaiyan
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.F.X.Eugene
For Respondent : No appearance
Nos.3 to 7
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.324 of 2003
JUDGMENT
This Second appeal is filed as against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed the suit in O.S.No.36 of 1997 before the District Munsif, Sanakarankoil, for declaration and for permanent injunction as against respondents 1 and 2. The suit was dismissed on 25.04.2001. The appeal filed by him in A.S.No.38 of 2001 before the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23.01.2002.
2.As against the above concurrent findings of the courts, the present second appeal has been filed and this Court admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law, on 07.03.2003:
1. Whether the findings of the Courts below that the plaintiff has not proved his title is legally sustainable on the face of the documentary evidence Ex.A2, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 coupled with the oral documentary of P.W.3, D.W.1 and D.W.2?
2. Whether the findings of the Courts below that the plaintiff has not proved his possession is legally 2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 sustainable on the face of the admission made by D.W. 1 and D.W.2 in their evidence that the plaintiff's mother and plaintiff are in continuous possession of the suit property?
3.Mr.Muthugeethaniyan, learned Counsel for the appellant has made his submission through the following genealogy:
Avudaiammal – Gengaiah Naicker Death certificate [died 1951] Ex.A3, 28.01.1951 Daughter Nachiarammal Venkatasamy Naicker Death certificate [died 1939] Ex.A4, 08.06.1939 Gengammal Seeni Naicker Lakshmiammal-Balakrishnan Subbaiah Naicker [died in 1960 [died in 1963 without issues][1st def died Ex.A.5] [married] 05.09.2015 Wife Rajammal] LRS R3- R7]
--------------------------- Subbaiah [Son] [Plaintiff/Appellant] Gift Deed dated 22.11.1991 Raju [son] Claiming title as per Ex.A7 Jeyalakshmi [wife] Originally S.No.184/2 Re.S.No.318/5 2 Acre 82 cents Sold property by sale deed to the 2nd respondent A.S.A.Rathakrishna Raja, claiming title as per Ex.B2 S.No.318/5, 2 Acre 04 cents.3/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003
4.The Subject matter of the suit is the second schedule property of 2 Acres 82 Cents. The suit properties originally belong to one Avudaiammal, wife of Gengaiah Naicker, in Survey No.184/2 to an extent of 4.7 Acres. Avudaiammal purchased the suit property in the year 1926, vide Ex.A1 and she executed a settlement deed in respect of the property, in favour of her daughter Nachiarammal on 05.11.1936 vide Ex.A2. As per the settlement deed Ex.A2, the properties were settled in favour of Nachiarammal with a condition that it would be mutually enjoyed by her mother Avudaiammal and Nachiarammal till their lifetime and thereafter, it has to go the female descendants of Nachiarammal. The said Nachiarammal pre-deceased Avudaiammal on 08.06.1939, leaving behind her two sons and two daughters, namely, Gengammal, Seeni Naicker, Lakshmiammal and Subbaiah Naicker and her death certificate is marked as Ex.A4. Avudaimmal died on 28.01.1951 and her death certificate is marked as Ex.A3. After the death of Avudaiammal as per the settlement deed Ex.A2, the properties should go to the daughters of Nachiarammal, namely, Gengammal and Lakshmiammal. According to the plaintiff, Lakshmiammal was an insane person. However, in the year 1951 she was 4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 married to one Balakrishnan, who left his wife Lakshmiammal under the custody of Gengammal in the year 1958 and also married another woman. Thereafter, the entire property was under the custody of Gengammal. While so, the said Lakshmiammal died in the year 1963. Gengammal gave her daughter to her brother Subbaiah Naicker, the first defendant and also settled 1 Acre 25 cents, the first scheduled property in his favour. The second schedule property was in possession of Gengammal. She also executed a gift deed of the 2 acres and 82 cents in Survey No.184/2(Re-survey No.318/5) to her son/ plaintiff (Subbaiah) by gift deed dated 22.11.1991. From the year 1991, the second schedule property was in possession of the plaintiff and the patta was also issued in patta No.268. He also mortgaged the second schedule property to one Rengaraj on 18.05.1995. Under such circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 attempted to disturb the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and hence, he filed the above suit for declaration to declare the second schedule property belongs to him and for a consequential permanent injunction as against respondents 1 and 2. The suit was dismissed by the Principal District Munsif, Sankarankoil and the appeal filed by the 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 plaintiff before the Sub Court, Sankarankoil was also dismissed.
5.Mr.Muthugeethaiyan, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit mentioned properties in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 originally belong to Avudaiammal and there is no dispute with regard to the same and the said Avudaiammal has purchased the property in the year 1926, vide Ex.A1 and settled the property in favour of her daughter, Nachiarammal in the year 1936 vide Ex.A2, however, with a condition that after their lifetime, it has to go to the female descendants of Nachiarammal. There is no dispute that Gengammal and Lakshmiammal are the female descendants of Nachiarammal. Lakshmiammal became insane in the year 1958, her husband Balakrishnan divorced her in a Village Panchayat and she was under the custody of Gengammal, the mother of the plaintiff and the said Lakshmiammal died in the year 1963 without any issue. From the property in Survey No.184/2, Gengammal gave first schedule property of 1.25 Acres to her brother cum son-in-law, viz., Subbaiah Naicker by partition deed dated 29.06.1968 and settled the remaining 2.82 Acres the second schedule property to her son / the 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 plaintiff vide gift deed dated 22.11.1991. However, the first defendant disturbed the peaceful possession of the plaintiff that the property of Gengammal has to go to the female descendant, i.e., to his wife and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the property. The second defendant claimed that he purchased the property from one Jeyalakshmi, wife of one Raju, grandson of Nachiarammal on 17.02.1995 through Ex.B2. Raju claims title through a Will, but it was not marked as exhibit before the trial Court. As per the Will the document executed by Raju in favour of Jeyalakshmi, is marked as Ex.B3, which was registered at Padasalai, Kerala on 08.11.1993 and through that document Jeyalakshmi executed Ex.B2, in favour of the second defendant on 17.02.1995. By virtue of these documents, the second defendant claims title over the property in Old.S.No.184/2 (Resurvey No. 318/5) to the extent of 2 Acres 4 Cents. Though the trial Court and the first appellate Court have not accepted the said Will, held that Balakrishnan, husband of Lakshmiammal, is the legal heir of the portion of the property of Lakshmiammal and therefore, Balakrishnan is having right over the half of the property in Survey No. 184/2 to an extent of 2.4 Acres.
7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003
6.The learned Counsel for the appellant by referring the provisions under Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 submits that Lakshmiammal died intestate in the year 1963 without any issue. Even before that Balakrishnan divorcing her wife Lakshmiammal in a village panchayat, he left her under the custody of Gengammal, the mother of the plaintiff in the year 1958. Balakrishnan, who was examined as PW3 has also admitted the same. Balakrishnan also married another woman. This property subject matter of the suit was inherited by Lakshiammal through her mother Nachiarammal, pursuant to the settlement deed Ex.A2. If a female hindu dies intestate, without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her mother would go to heirs of her father, as per Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the same is extracted here under:
“15.General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus: (1) the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16-
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;
(b)Secondly, upon the heirs of the
husband;
8/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the
father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother; (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)-
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father;
7.The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by Lrs Vs Ponnusamy and Ors [in Civil Appeal No.6659 of 2011, dated 20.11.2022] and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
“70.Section 14 (I) converted all limited estates owned by women into absolute estates and the succession of these properties in the absence of a will or testament would take place in consonance with Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads as follows:-
44“Section -15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.— 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,—
(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)-
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-
in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.” Section 16 – Order of Succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu. – The order of succession among the heirs referred to in Section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestate’s property among those heirs shall take place, according to the following rules, namely:— Rule 1.—Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those 45 in any succeeding entry and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously.
Rule 2.—If any son or daughter of the 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 intestate had predeceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate’s death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestate’s death.
Rule 3.—The devolution of the property of theon the heirs referred to in clauses
(b), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) and in sub-section (2) to Section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father’s or the mother’s or the husband’s as the case may be, and suchperson had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate’s death.”
71. The scheme of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 goes to show that property of Hindu females dying intestate is to devolve on her own heirs, the list whereof is enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 15 (1).
Sub- Section (2) of Section 15 carves out exceptions only with regard to property acquired through inheritance and further, the exception is confined to the property inherited by a Hindu female either from her father or mother, or from her husband, or from her father-in-law. The exceptions carved out by sub-Section (2) shall operate only in the event of the Hindu female dies without leaving any direct heirs, i.e., her son or daughter or children of the pre-deceased son or daughter.
72. Thus, if a female Hindu dies intestate 11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 without leaving any issue, then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband orfather- in-law would go to the heirs of the husband. In case, a female Hindu dies leaving behind her husband or any issue, then Section 15(1)(a) comes into operation and the properties left behind including the properties which she inherited from her parents would devolve simultaneously upon her husband and her issues as provided in Section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
73. The basic aim of the legislature in enacting Section 15(2) is to ensure that inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless and intestate, goes back to the source.
74. Section 15(1)(d) provides that failing all heirs of the female specified in Entries
(a)-(c), but not until then, all her property howsoever acquired will devolve upon the heirs of the father. The devolution upon the heirs of the father shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had belonged to the father and he had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after her death. In the present case the since the succession of the suit properties opened in 1967 upon death of Kupayee Ammal, the 1956 Act shall apply and 12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 thereby Ramasamy Gounder’s daughters being Class-I heirs of their father too shall be heirs and entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit properties.
75. This Court while analysing the provisions of Sections 15 & 16 of the Act in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Singh & Ors.15, has held as under:-
“7. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 groups the heirs of a female intestate into five categories and they are specified under clauses (a) to (e). As per Sections 16 Rule 1 those in one clause shall be preferred to those in the succeeding clauses and those included in the same clause shall take simultaneously. Sub- section (2) of Section 15 begins with a non-obstante clause providing that the order of succession is not that prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 15. It carves out two exceptions to the general order of succes- sion provided under sub-section (1). The first exception relates to the property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother. That property shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of the pre-deceased son or daughter), not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father. The second exception is in relation to the property inherited by a female Hindu 15 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 108 from her husband or from her father-
in-law. That property shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of the pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon 13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 the other heirs referred to under sub-
section (1) in the order specified thereunder but upon the heirs of the husband.
8. The process of identifying the heirs of the intestate under sub-section (2) of Section 15 has been explained in Bhajya v. Gopikabai and Anr. [1978] 3 SCR
561.There this Court observed that the rule under which the property of the intestate would devolve is regulated by Rule 3 of Section 16 of the Act. Rule 3 of Section 16 provides that "the devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) of Section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father's or the mother's or the husband's as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate's death".
76. Again in the case of Bhagat Ram (dead) by LRs. Vs. Teja Singh (dead) by LRs.16, a two-Judge Bench of this Court analysing the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act reiterating the view taken in the State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Singh & Ors.(Supra), observed as under :-
“The source from which she inherits the property is always important and that would govern the situation. Otherwise persons who are not even remotely related to the person who originally held the property would acquire rights to inherit that property. That would defeat the intent and purpose of sub-Section 2 of 14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 Section 15, which gives a special pattern of succession. “
77. Applying the above settled legal proposition to the facts of the case at hands, since the succession of the suit properties opened in 1967 upon death of Kupayee Ammal, the 1956 Act shall apply and thereby Ramasamy Gounder’s daughter’s being Class-I heirs of their father too shall also be heirs and entitled to 1/5th Share in each of the suit properties.”
8.The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that in view of the document Ex.A6, there was a partition among the legal heirs of Gengammal and by the said partition they have given up the rights in the settlement deed Ex.A2. According to the learned Counsel, as per Ex.A6, document Ex.A2 has not been given effect at all. The defendant Subbaiah Naicker has also filed a written statement before the trial Court that he is also entitled for a share in the property of Nachiarammal and therefore, according to the learned Counsel, all the legal heirs of Nachiarammal are having equal share in the schedule mentioned property and among document Ex.A2 and Ex.A6, the later document of partition between Gengammal and Subbiah Naicker would prevail over, in view of Ex.A6. Therefore, as per Hindu Succession Act all the legal heirs of Nachiarammal are entitled for equal share in the first schedule property. Further it is submitted 15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 that Raju, S/o.Seeni Naikcer got the share of Lakshmiammal, from her husband Balakrishnan by virtue of document Ex.B1, dated 17.07.1992. Further, the plaintiff has to establish his case that he is entitled for the entire property. But the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands.
9.Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials placed on record.
10.The suit schedule properties originally belong to Avudaiammal, W/o.Gengaiah Naicker. She purchased the property in Old Survey No.184/2 to an extent of 4.7 Acres in the year 1926 vide document Ex.A1. Avudaiammal had a daughter viz., Nachiarammal. During her lifetime, Avudaiammal executed a registered settlement deed in favour of her daughter Nachiarammal on 05.11.1936 vide document Ex.A2. As per the settlement deed Avudaiammal and Nahicarammal have to enjoy the property till their lifetime. Thereafter, the property has to go to the female descendants of Nachiarammal. However, Nachiarammal predeceased her mother Avudaiammal on 08.06.1939 and her 16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 mother Avudaiammal died on 28.01.1951. Their death certificates are marked as Ex.A4 and Ex.A3 respectively. Nachiarammal has two sons and two daughters. Gengammal is the eldest daughter, followed by Seeni Naicker, Lakshmiammal and Subbaiah Naicker. Lakshmiammal died in the year 1963 without any issue. The plaintiff is the son of Gengammal and Gengammal exchanged certain properties to her brother Subbaiah Naicker in the year 1991 vide Ex.A7. Balakrishnan [PW3] claiming to be the husband of Lakshmiammal executed the release deed in favour of Raju with regard to his half share of the property of Lakshmiammal through document Ex.B1, dated 17.07.1992. Raju, son of Seeni Naicker and also grandson of Nachiarammal along with his mother Rajammal, wife of Seeni Naicker executed sale deed dated 08.01.1993 in favour of wife Jeyalakshmi, who in turn sold the property by way of sale deed to the second respondent A.S.Radhakrishna Raju to an extent of second 2.4 Acres in Survey No.318/5 through document Ex.B2. Since A.Radhakrishna Raja in the strength of Ex.B2 attempted to enjoy the possession, the plaintiff, S/o.Gengammal, filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. 17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003
11.The suit was dismissed on 25.04.2001 by the Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil. The appeal filed in A.S.No.38 of 2001 before the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23.01.2002.
12.The property is a self acquired property of Avudaiammal in Old Survey No.184/2, which was purchased by her in favour of 1926 vide document Ex.A1. With regard to that property she created a settlement deed in the year 1936, in favour of her daughter Nachiarammal with a condition that after their lifetime, the property should go to the female descendants of Nachiarammal. Nachiarammal predeceased Avudaiammal in the year 1939 and Avudaiammal passed away in the year 1951 and after the death of Avudaiammal, the property was enjoyed by Gengammal and her son plaintiff.
13.Subbiah Naicker, the brother of Gengammal, married one of the daughters of Gengammal. After the marriage, a partition was made between the plaintiff/appellant's mother and Subbiah Naicker with regard to the property in Survey No.184 /2 to an extent of 1.25 Acres through document Ex.A6. The property of Subbiah Naicker was also exchanged in favour of the plaintiff's mother. 18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003
14.The said Lakshmiammal, female descendant of Nachiarammal married one Balakrishnan (PW3), who admitted in his evidence that Lakshmiammal suffered with some mental disorder and therefore, she was under the custody of the plaintiff's mother Gengammal and later on died in the year 1967 without any issue and in the meantime he also married two other women. After the execution of document in Ex.A7, dated 22.11.1991, the said Balakrishnan executed a release deed in favour of Raju, S/o.Seeni Naicker (second son of Nachiarammal) vide document Ex.B1, dated 17.07.1992, and released half of his share of the property in survey No.184/2, in favour of Raju. In the strength of all these documents Raju along with his mother Rajammal, wife of Seeni Naicker executed sale deed in favour of Jeyalakshmi in Ex.B3, dated 08.11.1993.
15.The contesting defendant / Respondent No.2 purchased the property in Old Survey No.184/2 Re Survey No.318/5 to an extent of 2 Acres 4 Cents from Jeyalakshmi through document Ex.B2, dated 17.02.1995.
16.The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent by referring document in Ex.A7 claims that Subbiah, the plaintiff has created document Ex.A7 that of 19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 a gift deed and therefore, it is an admitted case that the property in Old Survey No.184/2 New Survey No.318/5 was shared among the legal heirs of Nachiarammal.
17.It is not in dispute that the settlement deed Ex.A2 was given effect. The appellate Court also admitted the same and recorded in the findings that as per the settlement deed, the property in Survey No.184/2 has to go to the female descendant of Nachiarammal namely, Gengammal and Lakshmiammal. The said Lakshmiammal died intestate. The property in survey No.184/2 was inherited by Lakshmiammal through settlement deed Ex.A2. As per Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother would devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter, upon heirs of her father. In this case, Lakshmiammal died intestate without any issue. It is also claimed that the said Lakshmiammal was mentally affected and therefore, she was under the custody of Gengammal. Therefore, half share of the property of Lakshmiammal was devolved upon the heirs of Venkatasamy Naicker and it has to be divided equally among all the legal heirs of Venkatasamy Naikcer. Accordingly, each may get 68 cents of 2.04Acres in Old SurveyNo.184/2. Respondent No.1, died 20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 pending the second appeal and his legal heirs were brought on record as Respondents 3 to 7, but they did not prefer to contest the second appeal. Respondent No.2 obtained the property through the sale deed Ex.B2, executed by Jeyalakshmi, in favour of respondent No.2. Jeyalakshmi obtained the property through her husband Raju and she is entitled for a share of 68 cents as per document Ex.A2 and the legal heir of Seeni Naicker, the second son of Nachiarammal is having right only to an extent of 68 Cents and that too from the share of Lakshmiammal, which has been devolved upon to her father after her demise in the year 1963, as per Section 15(2)
(a) of the Hindu Succession Act.
18.In the light of the above,
(i) the appellant is entitled to have 1.47 acres of land ;
(ii) the 1st defendant is entitled to have 1.93 acres of land ; and
(iii) the 2nd defendant is entitled to have 0.68 acre.
21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003
19.The second appeal is allowed on the above terms. The judgment and decree passed dated 23.01.2002 in A.S.No.38 of 2001, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil and the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.36 of 1997, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Sankarankoil are hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
08.03.2022
Index : yes/No
Internet : yes/No
dsk
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Sankarankovil.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
Sankarankoil.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.324 of 2003 B.PUGALENDHI., J dsk S.A.No.324 of 2003 08.03.2022 23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis