K.Moorthy vs Mrs.K.Rathina on 4 October, 2018
14. Mr.K.Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellant in S.A. No.362
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.Nos.362 & 451 of 2019
of 2019 would contend that when the property was admittedly an ancestral
property at the hands of Kuppusamy, the alienation made by him by way of
settlement in favour of the wife i.e.,, the second defendant, was a void
document. Further, he would state that when admittedly, there has been no
partition in the family, after the Amendment Act 39 of 2005 to Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 and especially, after the pronouncement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors,
reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1, the two sisters of the first defendant would also
become entitled to an equal share in the coparcenery property. Therefore,
according to learned counsel, Mr.K.Hariharan, the Courts below erred in
going by the written statemnent of the parents that the property was settled
by the father in favour of mother with an understanding that all of them
would take an equal 1/5th share, the same being contrary to settled legal
position.