MANGAMMAL @ THULASI AND ANR. versus T.B. RAJU AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 776 · Decided: 19-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
MANGAMMAL @ THULASI AND ANR.
v.
T.B. RAJU AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1933 of 2009)
APRIL 19, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.29-A –  Right of daughter in
coparcenary property – Succession by survivorship – Father of
appellants-daughters and respondent no.1-son passed away and
left behind ancestral properties – Properties were leased out to
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4  during the lifetime of mother of appellants
and respondent no.1 – During the lease period, she died and
thereafter, lands were sold by respondent no.1 to respondent nos. 2
to 4 – Appellants filed suit against  respondent no.1 for partition
and separate possession of the properties – Trial Court while
dismissing the suit held appellants-plaintiff were not entitled to any
partition – Appeal was dismissed by the High Court – On appeal,
held: U/s. 29-A of the Act, only unmarried daughter of a coparcener
is entitled to claim partition in the Hindu Joint Family Property –
On a plain reading of s.29-A, it is evident, inter-alia, daughter of a
coparcener ought not to have been married at the time of
commencement of the amendment of 1989 – In instant case, it is
admitted position that both the appellants-daughters got married
prior to the commencement of the 1989 amendment – Therefore, in
view of cl(iv) of s.29-A, appellants could not institute the suit for
partition and separate possession at first instance as they were not
the coparceners – However, from record of the case, the coparcener
property in the hand of father of appellants got divided between
him and his son-respondent no.1 – In such partition, father of
appellants got ½ share and respondent no.1 also got ½ share –
Now, the property left in the hand of father of appellants would be
his separate property – On his death, such separate property would
devolve through succession by applying the rules of ss. 8, 9 and 10
of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Therefore, the appellants not
entitled to any share in coparcenary property since they were not
the coparceners in view of 1989 amendment – However, on the death
of their father and mother, appellants-daughters would get their
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 776
776
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
777
property through succession – Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu
Amendment) Act, 1989.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is undisputed fact that ‘TGB’, the father of the
appellants and respondent no.1, had only ancestral properties
and he did not left behind any self acquired properties. On a plain
reading of the newly added provision i.e., Section 29-A of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it is evident that, inter-alia, daughter
of a coparcener ought not to have been married at the time of
commencement of the amendment of 1989. In other words, only
un-married daughter of a coparcener is entitled to claim partition
in the Hindu Joint Family Property. In the instant case, it is
admitted position that both the appellants got married prior to
the commencement of the 1989 amendment. Therefore, in view
of clause (iv) of the Section 29-A of the Act, appellants could not
institute the suit for partition and separate possession at first
instance as they were not the coparceners. [Para 9] [783-C-E]
2.1 However, as appears from the record of the case and
also in view of the contention of the parties, the coparcener
property in the hand of ‘TGB’ got divided between him and his
son-respondent No. 1. In such partition, ‘TGB’ got ½ share and
respondent no.1 also got ½ share. Now the property left in the
hand of ‘TGB’  would be his separate property. On his death,
such separate property would devolve through succession by
applying the rules of Sections 8, 9 & 10 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 in the following manner:
·  Widow i.e. mother of the appellants would get ¼ of the
half share which stands at 1/8.
·   Daughter-Appellant No. 1 would get ¼ of the half share
which stands at 1/8.
·  Daughter-Appellant No. 2 would get the ¼ of the half
share which stands at 1/8.
·   Son-Respondent No. 1 would get the ¼ of the half share
which stands at 1/8. This 1/8 share would be in addition
of ½ share which he got in partition. [Para 12]
[784-E-H; 785-A]
MANGAMMAL @ THULASI AND ANR. v. T.B. RAJU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
2.2 On the death of the widow i.e., mother of the appellants,
her 1/8 share which she got in succession, would devolve through
succession by applying th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.