Dismissed¶49

R.Palanisamy (Died) v. Nachammal (Died)

Madras HC2 Mar 2026AS/222/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition of ancestral property; daughters' equal share under Hindu Succession Act 2005 amendment; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 relied on; first appeal A.S.No.222 of 2017 (High Court of Judicature at Madras, K. Kumaresh Babu J.) against judgment and decree dated 05.01.2017 of II Additional District Cum Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in O.S.No.193 of 2015 dismissed; appellants' 1/15th-share contention rejected; trial court partition decree confirmed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; the judgment and decree of the II Additional District Cum Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in O.S.No.193 of 2015 stand undisturbed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs. ¶49

R.Palanisamy (Died) Vs Nachammal (Died) — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

A.S.No222 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

A.S.No.222 of 2017

R.Palanisamy (Died)

2.Vasanthi

3.Gnana Sundari

4.Krishnamoorthy … Appellants

¶11

(A1 died, A2 to A4 are brought on record as LR’s of deceased first appellant viz., R.Palanisamy, vide order of Court dated 09.02.2023

¶12

¶13

1.Nach ammal (Died) 2.Rajathi

3.Shanthi

4.Balasubramaniam

5.Jayaprabha

6.Minor K.Uthara

7.Minor K.Mithra … Respondents (Minors represented by their mother and natural guardian Jayaprabha 5 th respondent herein)

¶19

(R1 died. R5 to R7 are brought on record as L R ’s of the deceased first respondent vide Court order dated 13.06.2025 made in CMP.Nos.6370, 6378 & 6374 of 2024 in A.S.No.222 of 2017)

¶20

PRAYER : This First Appeal has been filed Under Section 96 of CPC read

¶21

with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2017 made in O.S.No.1 9 3 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Cum Sessions Judge , Tiruppur .

¶22

1/6

¶23

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

¶24

A.S.No222 of 2017

¶25

For Appellants : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

¶26

For Respondents : R1 – Died

¶27

: Mr.V.Nicholas for RR2, 3, 5 to 7 (RR6 & 7 minors represented by R5)

¶28

: No appearance for R4 (served)

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The present appeal has been made challenging the judgment and

¶31

decree dated 05.01.2017 made in O.S.No.193 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Cum Sessions Judge, Tiruppur

¶32

Heard, Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the appellants

¶33

and Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2, 3, 5 to 7.

¶34

Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

appellant would submit that respondents 1 to 3 herein had originally instituted a suit seeking for partition over the suit scheduled property on the contention that the same is an ancestral property. The said suit was resisted

¶36

by the appellant as also the fourth respondent contending that the suit scheduled property had come to the father of the parties by way of a 2/6

¶37

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

¶38

A.S.No222 of 2017 partition between himself and his brothers and therefore, he becomes the absolute owner of the property and by application of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff would only be entitled to 1/15th share each and that the appellant and the fourth respondent would be entitled to 6 (1/15th) share.

¶39

He would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 were also given in marriage by their father expending huge sum of money apart from being given gifts by way of Srithanam . He would submit that with regard to the suit scheduled property, monies have been expended for its development and improvement. He would submit that the Court below without considering all these factors had granted a decree of 3/5th share in the suit scheduled property in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents. He would vehemently contend that the Court below had wholly erred in granting such a decree without considering the law of Succession and had also failed to see the law laid down in that regard both by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

¶40

Countering his arguments Mr.V.Nicholas, l earned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand would contend that the claim for partition of a daughter is no longer res integra and had 3/6

¶41

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

¶42

A.S.No222 of 2017 been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma and Others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 . Hence, he would submit that there is no error in the judgment and decree which is sought to be interfered with. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

I have considered the submissions made by the learned

¶44

counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶45

Admittedly, the plaintiffs/ respondents 1 to 3 had filed a suit

¶46

for partition of the property, of the suit scheduled property claiming that its their ancestral property. The nature of the property had not been disputed, but however it had only been contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to only 1/15th share each in the suit scheduled property. The claim of the daughter for equal share in the property pursuant to the amendments to the Hindu Succession Act 2005 has also been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs who are admittedly the sisters 4/6

¶47

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

¶48

A.S.No222 of 2017 of the defendants are entitled to equal share in the property which they had inherited by application of the amended Hindu Succession Act which came into force in the year 2005 and also on the light of the judgment reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1.

¶49

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order impugned herein and accordingly, the Appeal suit stands dismissed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions stands closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

02.03.2026

¶51

Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation:Yes/No Gba To Additional District Cum Sessions Court - II, Tiruppur

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

A.S.No222 of 2017 K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

¶55

GBA