Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is the case of the plaintiffs that suit A and B schedule properties were the ancestral joint family properties of their grandfather Muthukumarasamy Chettiar and his children. In partition, suit 'A' schedule properties were allotted to their grandfather, (father of defendants 1 to 9) and B schedule properties were allotted to their father (1st defendant) under the registered partition deeds dated 05.07.1974 and 31.07.1983. The 1st plaintiff got married in 1996 and the 2nd plaintiff got married in 1999. Since the plaintiffs' marriage took place after the commencement of the Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, they are deemed to be coparceners in the family properties and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to each 1/40th share in 'A' schedule properties and 1/4th share in B schedule properties. After the demise of their grandfather, the 3rd defendant Vinayagam filed a suit for partition against defendants 1 and 2 and 4 to 11 to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the properties of his father, in O.S.No.22 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore and in which, the defendants colluded themselves and entered into a compromise and pursuant to which, a compromise decree was passed on 07.02.2003. In the said suit, the plaintiffs and their brother were not parties. On a perusal of the said compromise decree, the plaintiffs came to know that their father has not reserved himself any share in 'A' schedule properties, which is against law and justice. The plaintiffs, being coparceners, are entitled to their respective share and the father cannot relinquish or gift his share allotted to his branch, without concurrence of the plaintiffs and as such, the compromise decree is not binding on them. From the proceedings of the said suit, the plaintiffs further came to know that their grandfather executed a Will and the same was registered at Chennai in spite of the fact that the properties were situated in and around Cuddalore, which create grave suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. Further, the value of the properties in the compromise decree, was given a lesser value though they worth about crores of rupees. The plaintiffs, who are deemed to be coparceners as per the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, are entitled for a share in the properties of their grandfather. Their father has no right to relinquish his right in the 'A' schedule properties. Hence, they filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra.

7. Muthukumarasamy Chettiar was running a theatre under a name Kamalam Theater, for which, he visited Chennai frequently and one P.S.Ramachandran, Advocate was his family Advocate and after consultation with him, he executed the Will dated 16.08.1983 and it was written by one Gopal Pillai and the said Advocate signed as one of the attesting witnesses and the Will was kept in secret. In the year 1990, when Muthukumarasamy Chettiar was admitted in Vijaya Hospital, Chennai for eye cataract operation, he suffered heart problem and as such, the eye operation was stopped and he was given treatment for his heart problem. Only at that time, Muthukumarasamy Chettiar disclosed the execution of the Will and this defendant also came to know about this for the first time. After the death of his father only, the cover was opened and the Will was registered on 22.04.2002 and thereafter, the contents of the Will was disclosed to all the family members. Since the 3rd defendant and other daughters of Muthukumarasamy agitated that there was no provision for them in the Will, O.S.No.22 of 2003 had been filed by the 3rd defendant for partition. Subsequently, there was a panchayat in the presence of one Venugopal, one of the sons-in-law of Muthumukumarasamy Chettiar and there was a compromise and pursuant to which, a compromise decree was passed on 07.02.2003. Since the plaintiffs (the grand-daughters of Muthukumarasamy Chettiar and the daughters of the 1st defendant) are not sharers, they are not entitled to question the compromise decree. In the compromise, the 1st defendant has given up his right for cash consideration and has also received extra consideration and has given a receipt for the same, which was attested by the 13th defendant. Even for the arguments' sake that Muthukumarasamy Chettiar died intestate, since he died after commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs are not the class-I heirs of Muthukumarasamy Chettiar and they are not entitled to get any share in respect of 'A' schedule properties. So far as B schedule properties, defendants 2 to 12 are not the necessary parties and as such, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of cause of action. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

11. Attacking one of the reasons assigned by the courts below for rejecting the case of the plaintiffs that in the Will dated 16.08.1983, Muthukumarasamy Chettiar has not made any provision to the 1st defendant and some other defendants and that is why in a compromise decree, by accepting Rs.3 lakhs, the 1st defendant has relinquished his right in the 'A' schedule properties, the learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the said Will was not proved before the trial court and as such, it has never acted upon and under such circumstances, the said reason assigned by the courts below cannot be accepted. Further, the finding of the courts below that the compromise decree was accepted by the 1st defendant as the Kartha of the family and, therefore, the compromise decree will bind on the plaintiffs, is not correct because the compromise decree was signed by the 1st defendant not in the capacity of the Kartha of the family, whereas it was signed only in his individual capacity. In support of her submissions, the learned senior counsel has relied on the decisions reported in SIVARAMAKRISHNAN ..vs.. KAVERI AMMAL (AIR 1955 MADRAS 705), NARENDRANATH ..vs.. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH (1969 (II) MLJ 99) and M.SHANMUGHA UDAYAR ..vs.. SIVANANDAM AND OTHERS (AIR 1994 MADRAS 123).

23. So far as the 'B' schedule properties, the courts below have granted a decree as prayed for. Since 'B' schedule property is the property of their father, the 1st defendant, both the plaintiffs and the 13th defendant are entitled to each 1/4th share. In view of these findings, I am of the opinion that there is no need to deal with the other aspects of this case, namely, the validity of the compromise decree since the compromise decree was not challenged by the father of the plaintiffs. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the courts below and the substantial questions of law are answered against the plaintiffs.