Madras High Court: R. Subramanian, J., dismissed the second appeal filed in regard to suit for partition and granting possession of share to a daughter as coparcener on finding no substantial question of law.
In the instant second appeal, plaintiffs are aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share.
What did the plaintiffs contend?
Plaintiffs stated that the suit properties belonged to Rasappa Gounder who died in the year 1980 leaving behind one son and two daughters. One of the daughters is the wife of the first plaintiff and mother of the second plaintiff, died on 20-04-1987.
Plaintiffs claimed that as the daughter she would become a coparcener upon enactment of Hindu Succession (Amendment Act 39 of 2005) Act, the plaintiff’s would seek a 1/3rd share in the estate of Rasappa Gounder.
Defendants contended that the predecessor in interest viz., Rasappa Gounder died in the year 1980 and after his death, there was an arrangement under which the daughters and the second defendant Subbayal relinquished their share in Rasappa Gounder’s estate upon receipt of Rs 25,000.
It was also stated that defendant 1 was in possession of the property as an absolute owner and sold a portion of the properties to the knowledge of Poornam, plaintiffs and second defendant.
Therefore, it was contended that the plaintiffs were effectively ousted from the enjoyment of the property by the first defendant.
Second defendant supported the above contentions and stated that she and her sister had received a sum of Rs 25,000 in full quit of their share and have no claim over the properties of the deceased.
Trial Court had held that since Rasappa Gounder died in 1981, the succession having opened on the death of Rasappa Gounder, Poornam would not become a coparcener.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) SCC Online 641
Change in law brought by the above-cited decision of the Supreme Court would not have helped the plaintiff, since the daughter herself had died in 1987 even prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act 39 of 2005) Act.
Hence, the claim that the daughter becomes a coparcener was rejected by the trial court.
In view of the above, a second appeal was filed.
Counsel A. Thiyagarajan appeared for the appellants.
Bench stated that if the claim of the plaintiffs was to be restricted to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, then the devolution of the estate happened on the death of Rasappa Gounder in the year 1981. The instant suit has been filed 30 years thereafter in the year 2011.
Hence the Court stated that it is a stale claim which is sought to be resurrected for some other reason.
Therefore, Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the second appeal. [C.P. Subramaniam v. Deivasigamami, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 5206, decided on 16-10-2020]