Lakshmi v. Subramani
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court allowed second appeals in a partition suit. Ruling that father's properties are ancestral, female plaintiff is co-parcener. Ordered 1/32 share in items 1-2 and 1/4 share in items 3, 6-8. Items 4-5 dismissed.
What did the court decide?
Set aside lower decrees; Plaintiff entitled to 1/32 share in items 1 & 2; 1/4 share in items 3, 6, 7 & 8.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTIC E R.HEMALATHA S.A.Nos.421 & 422 of 2006 and C.M.P. No.5483 of 2006
Lakshmi ...Appellant in both appeals/ Respondent No.1/Plaintiff Vs.
1.Subramani (Deceased) 2.Ramasamy ...Respondent No.2/Defendant No.3 3.Chinnappa Gounder 4.Kaliappa Gounder 5.Muthusamy Gounder ...Respondents 3 to 18/D 7 6.Muthusamy N.Arumugham D8, D9, D10, D14, D17, 7.K.Thangaraj D20 to D29 8.Muniamooppan 9.Karuppayammal 10.Ramasamy 11.Valliammal 12.Pappathi 13.Duraisamy 14.Pavayammal 15.Minor. Myilsami @ Jeevanandam (Rep. by his mother Pavayammal) 16.Muthayammal 17.C.Duraisamy 18.Saraswathi 19.Pappathi 20.Vijayakumar 21.Sugumar 22.Chellammal 23.Boopathy 24.Kannammal 25.Marayammal 26.Jayammal 27.Ganapathi 28.Devi ...Respondents in S.A.No.421 of 2006/ R4 to R9 and R11 to R29 set Exparte (RR25 to 28 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order of Court dated 17.09.2010 made in C.M.P.No.1816/2007) 1.Subramani (Deceased) 2.Ramasamy ...R2/R3/R3 3.K.Thangaraj ...R3 to R18/D7 to D10
4.C.Duraisamy D14, D17, D20, D21 to D29 5.Chinnappa Gounder 6.Kaliappa Gounder 7.Muthusamy Gounder 8. N.Arumugham 9.Muniamooppan 10.Karuppayammal 11.Ramasamy 12.Valliammal 13.Pappathi 14.Duraisamy 15.Pavayammal 16.Minor. Myilsami @ Jeevanandam (Rep. by his mother Pavayammal) 17.Muthayammal 18.Saraswathi 19.Pappathi 20.Vijayakumar ...R4 to R9 – Set Exparte & 11 to 29 21.Sugumar 22.Chellammal 23.Boopathy 24.Kannammal 25.Marayammal 26.Jayammal 27.Ganapathi 28.Devi ...Respondents in S.A.No.422 of 2006 (RR25 to 28 brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order of Court dated 17.09.2010 made in C.M.P.No.1817/2007)
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether lower appellate court erred in holding suit items 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 are joint family properties absent evidence of ancestral nucleus?
Whether upper court must follow principles requiring proof of ancestral nucleus capable of yielding surplus income for property acquisition?
Whether female heirs are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties and claim partition of dwelling houses post-2005 amendment?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Lakshmi
- respondent
Subramani (Deceased)
- respondent
Ramasamy
- respondent
Chinnappa Gounder
- respondent
Kaliappa Gounder
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court