Allowed

K.Rajalakshmi, v. K.Padmavathi @ Devi

Madras HC16 Aug 2023CRP(MD)/904/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court held that the lower court erred in permitting a change in share ratios to the detriment of senior Class II heirs, ruling it perverse. The Sub-Court's amendment application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed by dismissing the amendment application in I.A.No.427 of 2018. There shall be no order as to costs.

K.Rajalakshmi, Vs K.Padmavathi @ Devi — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD).No.904 of 2019

¶2

-BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.904 of 2019 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD) No.5234 of 2019

¶8

K.Rajalakshmi

¶9

Sree Mohana

¶10

V.Kannan (died)

¶11

S.Perumal (2^nd Petitioner mentally retarded Represented through 1^st Petitioner)

¶12

... Petitioners/Respondents/ Defendants

¶13

-vs-

¶14

K.Padmavathi @ Devi

¶15

L.Makarajothy

¶16

L.Manikandan ... Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶17

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 18.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.427 of 2018 in O.S.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Periyakulam.

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.V.N.Arjun for Mr.N.Vallinayagam For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajamohan

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

1/6

¶21

C.R.P.(MD).No.904 of 2019

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The present Civil Revision Petition has been by the petitioners under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 18.01.2019 passed in I.A.No.427 of 2018 in O.S.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the SubCourt, Periyakulam.

¶24

The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs before the Court below.

¶25

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the litigative status before the trial Court.

¶26

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has vehemently submitted that the very order passed by the Court below permitting the plaintiffs who are brothers's son of the 3 rd defendant to have a change in ratio of share from 1/4 th to 1/3 rd on the demise of 3 rd defendant, is contrary to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and he prayed to allow this Civil Revision Petition.

¶27

2/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.R.P.(MD).No.904 of 2019

¶30

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would fairly

¶31

concede that their client comes under class II heir in entry four. Therefore, as per Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, the preceding entry have a right over the later entry.

¶32

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

¶33

7. It is an admitted fact that the 3 rd defendant viz., V.Kannan died issueless. Upon the demise of said Kannan, who also happened to be the mentally retarded person, the plaintiffs have filed an amendment application to alter the quantum of share from 1/4 th to 1/3 rd on the ground that they are the legal heirs of the 3 rd defendant.

¶34

8. In respect of succession of male Hindu, Section 8 of the Hindu

¶35

Succession Act provides Rules of succession. For ready reference, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, is extracted hereunder:

¶36

“8. General rules of succession in the case of males.—The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:-

¶37

3/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

C.R.P.(MD).No.904 of 2019

¶40

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule;

¶41

(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;

¶42

¶43

(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.”

¶44

9. As per the above Section, if there is no heir of class I, then the

¶45

class II heirs are entitled to have the share of the deceased male Hindu. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not the class I heirs and they would only come as class II heir. But, in the plaint, apart from the plaintiffs, the other sharers who are brothers and sisters of the deceased Kannan, were impleaded as parties to the suit. As per class II, the brother and sister comes in the second entry, whereas, the plaintiffs being the son of predeceased brother come in the fourth entry. Therefore, as per Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, prior entry of class II shall be preferred to the later entry. Since the petitioners come within the later entry, as per the Hindu Succession Act, they are not entitled to have the share of the deceased Kannan/3 rd defendant.

¶46

4/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

C.R.P.(MD).No.904 of 2019

¶49

10. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (2) CTC 456 (Thirthagiri Vs.Chinnathambi Gounder and others) . However, the Court below, without taking into consideration the above aspects, has permitted the amendment as if the plaintiffs can also have a share of the deceased 3 rd defendant, which finding is contrary to the Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act and perverse. Therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with.

¶50

11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by dismissing the amendment application in I.A.No.427 of 2018. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶51

16.08.2023

¶52

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi To 1. Th e Sub-Court, Periyakulam.

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

5/6

¶55

C.R.P.(MD).No.904 of 2019

¶56

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶57

ebsi

¶58

C.R.P(MD)No.904 of 2019

¶59

16.08.2023

¶60

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Rajalakshmi, v. K.Padmavathi @ Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rajalakshmi, v. K.Padmavathi @ Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maheswari Vs Chinnadurai @ Vaithialingam

Elanchiyam, Vs Chandra

A.Karpagam, Vs P.Muthulakshmi

N.v.Gurusamy (Died), Vs Balasubramanian

The Executive Engineer/ Vs Seethalakshmiammal (Died)

T.Amutha, Vs Dhivya