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 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]
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 the rules of Sections 15 & 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the following manner: · Daughter-Appellant No. 1 would get the 1/3 of the 1/8 which stands at 1/24.
· Daughter-Appellant No. 2 would get the 1/3 of the 1/8 which stands at 1/24.
Son-Respondent No. 1 would get the 1/3 of the 1/8 which stands at 1/24.
Final Share of Each Person:1. Daughter-Appellant No .1, total share would be 1/8 + 1/24 = 4/24 or 1/6.
2. Daughter-Appellant No. 2, total share would be 1/8 + 1/24 = 4/24 or 1/6.
3. Son-Respondent No. 1, total share would be ½ + 1/8 + 1/24 = 16/24 or 2/3. [Para 13] [785-B-E]
3. Any sale which made to Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in pursuance of two sale deeds shall not be disturbed anymore. In lieu of the same, the appellants shall be entitled to their legitimate share, if any, which belonged to them in such properties and which had been sold through sale deeds from Respondent No. 1 by way of money or some other property of the same amount. The price of the properties shall be calculated according to the rate prevailing at the date of sale deeds respectively along with interest @ 9 per cent per annum from the date of sale deeds till the payment of money or transfer of property. Here, legitimate share means share which appellants have got through the division of property as mentioned. [Para 14] [785-F-H]
4. To sum up the case, the appellants are 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 would get their property through succession in the above manner. [Para 15] [786-A-B] Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 36 ; Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors. 2018 (1) SCALE 657 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.