Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Whether the share in the properties left by Subramaniam which earlier devolved on the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as well as the first defendant under section 6 read with 8 of the Hindu Succession Act on the death of Subramaniam would be altered by reason of insertion of section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act,1956?
4. Before considering the above questions, it would be relevant to consider the property standing in the name of Rangammal daughter of Krishna Reddiar (Sr.)of an extent of 1.25 acres in the northern portion of second item of suit properties. In so far as that property is concerned, the property was standing in the name of Venkatammal wife of Krishna Reddiar (Sr.) and mother of Govindasamy Reddiar and she died on 29.11.1953 and on her death, the property devolved on Rangammal daughter of Venkatammal. Rangammal died in the year 1957 and on her death, the properties devolved on the fourth defendant Ellappa Reddiar and the seventh defendant Govindarajan. The trial Court on the basis of appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that 1.25 acres in the northern portion of the second item of suit properties belonged to Rangammal, daughter of Venkatammal. We find that the said finding of the trial Court is sustainable as it has been arrived at on the basis of evidence and on correct application of law and accordingly, we confirm the said finding.
5. As far as the rest of the properties are concerned, they were held by Krishna Reddiar (Sr.) and his son Govindasamy Reddiar as members of joint family and as joint family properties. Hence, it can be concluded that Krishna Reddiar (Sr.) had a half share in the properties and Govindasamy Reddiar had the other half share. On the death of Govindasamy Reddiar, in so far as the properties held by Govindasamy Reddiar are concerned, his son Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) would take 1/8th share and his wife Chinnammal would take 1/8th share and his daughters Rangammal and Pappathi each would take 1/8th share in the properties. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.), as a member of joint family, was holding a half share in the properties as ancestral property besides 1/8th share obtained from his father Govindasamy Reddiar as his separate property. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.)'s mother Chinnammal died in the year 1968 and she had 1/8th share in the properties and her 1/8th share devolved on her son Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) and therefore Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) got 1/24th share and his sister Rangammal had 1/24th share and his another sister Pappathi had 1/24th share. On the date of death of Chinnammal his mother, Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) had 1/2 share in the ancestral properties and 1/8th share as separate property which he derived on the death of his father and another 1/24th share as separate property which he obtained on the death of his mother. Since Krishna Reddiar(Jr.) was holding " share as ancestral property, his son Subramaniam, husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff was holding 1/4th share as ancestral property. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) died in the year 1979 and on his death, his 1/4th share in the joint family properties devolved on his son Subramaniam and his wife Alamelu ammal (D1) and his daughters, Rathinam (D2) and Balaji (D3). Accordingly, Subramaniam got 1/16th share, Alamelu ammal (D1) got 1/16th share and the daughters Rathinam and Balaji got 1/16th share each. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) also had 1/8th share as separate property and that share would also devolve on Subramaniam, Alamelu ammal, Rathinam and Balaji in equal shares, namely 1/24th share each. On the death of his father, Subramaniam was holding 1/4th share as ancestral property, 1/16th share as separate property and another 1/24th share from his father. In other words, his share was 1/4th share as ancestral property and 10/96th share as separate property. Subramaniam died on 15.2.1986. On the date of his death, section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act was not in force and all the properties held by Subramaniam devolved on his mother Alamelu ammal and two plaintiffs herein who are his wife and daughter.
6. There is no dispute that in the hands of Subramaniam there were separate properties, namely 10/96th share and that share would devolve on the two plaintiffs and the first defendant equally and each would get 11/144 share and totally they would be entitled to 40/144 share in separate properties of Subramaniam.
7. The Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, KANPUR, ETC. v. CHANDER SEN (100 L.W. 347) and YUDHISHTER v. ASHOK KUMAR (100 L.W. 356) has held that the position of old law has been affected by section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, therefore, after the Act, when the son inherited the property in the situation contemplated by section 8, he does not take it as Kartha of his own undivided family but takes it in his individual capacity. Therefore the properties which devolved on Subramaniam under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are not coparcenary properties or joint family properties in the hands of Subramaniam vis-a-vis his son/daughter.

19. Moreover, in S.SAI REDDY v. S.NARAYANA REDDY the Supreme Court was dealing with a case of partition and in that case, a preliminary decree was passed on December 26, 1973 declaring that the male heirs would be entitled to 1/3rd share each in the coparcenary property and during the pendency of final decree proceedings, but prior to the passing of final decree, the Hindu Succession Act was amended by the State of Andhra Pradesh inserting section 29-A of the Act with the result the unmarried daughter was treated as a coparcener entitled to a share in the joint family property as a coparcener. The Supreme Court held that though a preliminary decree was passed declaring shares on the male members of the family, since the Amendment Act came into force before the final decree was passed, the intervening event which gave shares to daughters had the effect of varying shares of the parties in the preliminary decree like any supervening development and that has to be given effect to. It was also held that the legislation is a beneficial one and section 29-A was inserted with the avowed object of benefiting women and hence, it is necessary to give a liberal effect to it. The Supreme Court in S. Sai Reddy case held that unless a partition of the property is effected by metes and bounds, the daughters cannot be deprived of the benefits conferred by the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in M. SHANMUGHA UDAYAR v. SIVANANDAM applied the principles laid down in Sai Reddy case and held that the daughter is entitled to a share equal to that of a son in the family. In SARASU v. BASKARAN (2000-3-L.W.599), in which one of us was a party, this Court has also taken the same view holding that the daughter is entitled to a share in the coparcenary property. In KOKILA v. SWATHANTHIRA & OTHERS (2004-3-L.W.60), K. Govindarajan, J. on the difference of opinion between two learned Judges has held that section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act is a deviation from section 6 of the said Act and an unmarried daughter can, under section 29A of the Act, claim right equal to a son in spite of specific devolution of interest in coparcenary properties as contained in section 6 of the Act. We are of the view that though the properties devolved on the plaintiffs as well as the mother of Subramaniam, first defendant in the suit and vested in them in the year 1986 on the death of Subramaniam, since partition in the family had not taken place by metes and bounds as provided under clause (v) of section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, the rights devolved on the family members would get altered and the second plaintiff would be entitled to claim her share as a coparcener in the coparcenary properties left by Subramaniam as if she had a right by birth in the coparcenary properties. We are of the view that any other construction would defeat the avowed purpose and object of section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act as the legislature has indicated that section 29-A of the Act has excepted from its operation only two cases, namely, where partition was effected prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 or where the daughter got married before the commencement of the said Amendment Act and in all other cases the necessary implication is section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act would apply and consequently, the shares, if any, devolved on the members of the family under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act would get altered and their rights in the family properties have to be redetermined by applying the provisions of section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore we hold that notwithstanding the fact that the properties had devolved on the heirs under sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act prior to the insertion of section 29-A of the Act, the second plaintiff is entitled to a share as a coparcener in the coparcenary properties left by Subramaniam. We therefore hold that the second plaintiff would be entitled to claim 1/8th share in the coparcenary properties held by Subramaniam. Subramaniam also had separate property, namely, 11/48 share and that would devolve on the plaintiffs and the first defendant, mother of Subramaniam equally. In the result, the second plaintiff would be entitled to 29/144 share and both the plaintiff would be entitled to 40/144 share, i.e., 20/72 share.