following the demise of her father Karuppanna Thevar, she took the property absolutely. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 states that any property possessed by a female Hindu whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act shall be held by her as full owner thereof. In other words, the Section declares that such property shall be her absolute property. The sons of the first defendant by virtue of their birth would not get any share in the property inherited by their mother during her lifetime. In Shub Karan Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna (2009) 9 SCC 689 , it was held that in a suit for partition or separation of a share, the court at the first stage decides whether the plaintiff has a share in the suit property and whether is entitled to division and separate possession. In other words, a partition of property can be only among those having a share or interest in it. A person who does not have a share in such property cannot obviously be a party to a partition. In this case, the plaintiffs never had any joint right or interest in the property which was the absolute property of their mother. The mother is still alive. During her lifetime, she had already dealt with the property. In these circumstances, the question of partition does not arise at all. Merely because in the plaint, it has been averred that the property is ancestral in nature and that each of the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share therein, that cannot mean that cause of action is “made out”. It is an instance of clever drafting. In Ramisetty
