Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Amendment made in 3.Mallika ... Appellants .. vs .. on 28 February, 2014Matching Fragments
38. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relies on a judgment of this court made in Parameswari @ Gnanasakthi vs. Raja Rathinam and others reported in 2010 (5) CTC 51 (rendered by myself). An observation made in the said judgment was to the effect that daughters, who were not married on the date of commencement of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 alone were made coparceners; that the similar provision introduced by the Central Act, namely Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 replacing the said amendment was not given retrospective effect and that however, so far as Tamil Nadu was concerned, the amendment was given effect to from 25.03.1989. The said observation was sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 does not make daughters of a coparcener, who was alive on the date of coming into force of the Central amendment even though no partition or alienation had taken prior to 20.12.2004 as per the proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 6, if such daughter had not become a coparcener as per the Tamil Nadu amendment made by Act 1 of 1990. The context in which the said judgment was pronounced seems to have been misconstrued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. For better appreciation the relevant passage found in paragraph 28 of the said judgment is reproduced here under:
45. In this case, such a difficulty in applying the provisions of the amending Act has not arisen, because the father was very much alive, both on the date on which the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act came into force and the date on which the Central amendment made by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force. The father is also alive even as on today. Therefore, this court does have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the daughters of the first defendant, namely K.M.Thangavel have become coparceners by virtue of new Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act introduced by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and they are entitled to equal shares as they would have had if they had been sons.
c) In the case referred in clause (b) above, if a partition had been effected prior to the effective date and her father had been allotted a share, she would have become a coparcener with the father only in respect of the property allotted to his share in the partition that took place prior to the crucial date, namely 25.03.1989.
d) The death of the father (coparcener) after the Tamil Nadu Amendment and before the commencement of the Central Amendment made by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 shall not deprive a daughter, who remained unmarried on 25.03.1989 and had become a coparcener by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Amendment of her right by birth as coparcener.
f) The death of a coparcener after 25.03.1989 and before the commencement of the Central Amendment Act made under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 will not make the daughters, who got married prior to 25.03.1989 as coparceners.
50. The result of the above said discussions shall be that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 to 5 shall be the coparceners and all of them shall be entitled to equal shares in the suit property. Each one of them shall be entitled to 1/5th share.
51. The contention of the contesting defendants that since the plaintiff had already relinquished his share by receiving a sum of Rs.2.00 Lakhs at the time of his marriage he is debarred from making any further claim, has been rejected by the courts below. On proper appreciation of evidence the courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding that the said contention of the contesting defendants has not been proved by reliable evidence. Both the courts below have rightly held that claim of the defendants in this regard has not been proved. The said concurrent finding of the courts below is neither defective nor infirm and the same does not deserve any interference. However, in view of the above finding that the daughters of first defendant have become coparceners along with their father and brother and that each one of them has become entitled to 1/15th share, this court holds that the lower appellate court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the benefit of amendment shall not be available to the daughters and that hence the son alone will be a coparcener, is bound to be interfered with and reversed. Since the plaintiff, first defendant and his daughters, namely defendants 3 to 5 have become coparceners and each one of them has become entitled to 1/5th share, the learned lower appellate judge committed an error in not considering the effect of the amendment made by the Central Act, namely the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the same was the reason why the learned lower appellate judge gave an erroneous finding that the plaintiff and the first defendant alone were the coparceners and they were entitled to = share each. A proper application of the amended provision will make it clear that all the daughters of the first defendant had become coparceners on the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and each one of them has also become entitled to a share equal to that of the plaintiff and that of the first defendant. While holding that the learned lower appellate judge has committed an error in not applying the provisions of the amended Hindu Succession Act as amended by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and resulted in holding the daughters of the first defendant not entitled to share as coparceners, this court notices the error committed by the trial court also in holding that only a 1/3rd of the suit properties was the coparcenary property, in which the plaintiff, defendants 1, 3 to 5 were entitled to equal share as coparceners. In view of the said finding, the decree of the lower appellate court deserves to be reversed and at the same time, the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the lower appellate court is bound to be allowed in part holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share as against the finding of the trial court that he was entitled to 1/15th share only.