Second appeal challenging a decree declaring plaintiffs (married daughters) entitled to shares in suit property asserted as ancestral. Court upheld lower appellate court findings based on post-2005 Hindu Succession Act amendments, dismissing the appeal.
Second appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
SA.NO.553 OF 2012 AND MP NO.1 OF 2012
1.Rajappa (died) ...Appellant / 1st Respondent / 1st Defendant
2.Parvathi
3.Srinivasan
4.Neelavathi
Appellants 2 to 4 residing at No.10, Vallalar Koil Mela Street, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam District
(Appellants 2 to 4 brought into record as legal heirs of the deceased sole appellant viz., Rajappa Vide Court Order dated 18.02.2022 made in CMP No.16759 of 2021 in SA No.553 of 2012 (NAVJ)) ...Appellants Vs.
1.Vijaya Lakshmi
2.Indirani 3.Panjali ...Respondents 1 to 3 / Appellants 1 to 3 / Plaintiffs 1 to 3 4.Bakyalakshmi ...4th Respondent / 2nd Respondent / 2nd Defendant 5.Rajam 6.Minor Balaji ...Respondents 5 & 6 / Respondents 3 & 4 / Appellants 4 & 5
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the decree and judgment of Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuturai, dated 15.11.11 made in A.S.No.63 of 2008 reversing judgement and decree of Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuturai dated 28.08.2006 made in O.S.No.219 of 2005.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Sounthar For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukumar for R1 to R6.
JUDGMENT
The 1st defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. The appellant died during the pendency of the Second appeal and in his place, the legal heirs have been impleaded and they are appellants 2 to 4.
property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.63 of 2008 before the Principal Sub Corut, Mayiladuthurai. The Lower Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and on considering the findings of the Trial Court, modified the Judgement and Decree of the trial Court and held that plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit property and the plaintiffs 4 and 5 are entitled for 1/6th share together. Accordingly, the preliminary decree was modified. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant has filed the present second appeal.
Sd/Assistant Registrar
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
rka
To
1.The Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai
2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai Copy To:The Section Officer V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.S.Sounthar, Advocate Sr.No.15323 +1cc to Mr.A.Muthukumar, Advocate Sr.No.14925
S.A.No.553 of 2012
RSV(CO) RVM(31/03/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether married daughters are entitled to a share in ancestral property where the father died after the 2005 amendment.
Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court regarding share entitlements suffer from perversity.
Whether a substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading CorporationReferred¶28
Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation; 2020 5 CTC 302
2 provisions across 2 enactments
1.Rajappa (died) and others
1.Vijaya Lakshmi and others
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
