Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7374 of 2008

Name of Judges: Hon’ble Judges Bela M. Trivedi and S.V.N. Bhatti

Order Date: 16.08.2023

Facts of the Case:

• The plaintiff, appellant in OS No. 746 of 1996 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, sought a declaration as a coparcener under the amended Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act) for a claim of one-third share in the property. The dispute’s focal point was the plaintiff’s status and entitlement concerning property owned by Defendants 1 and 2. Defendant No. 3 was a purchaser from Defendants 1 and 2.
• According to the plaintiff’s case, her grandfather purchased the property, and based on the Tamil Nadu State Amendment, she claimed the status of a coparcener, entitling her to a one-third share. Defendants 1 and 2, her father and brother, were party to an agreement of sale with Defendant No. 3, which subsequently led to a legal process. Furthermore, a partial partition agreement was reached among family members. This partition was documented in Exhibit-A3, dated 24.02.1980, specifying the property covered by the said Door Number.
• Of significant relevance, on 25.03.1989, Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act), 1989, came into effect. On 07.07.1989, the plaintiff got married, and in June 1995, C.S. No. 953 of 1995 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. This case was subsequently transferred and renumbered as OS No. 746 of 1996 before the City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff’s appeal rested on the sequence of events and the legal provisions she relied on, notably the partial partition agreement dated 24.02.1980 and the enactment of Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act.
• Defendants 1 and 2, who had faced a decree for specific performance, did not oppose the partition. However, Defendant No. 3 contested the suit, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims contradicted the property’s nature and the applicable legal provisions. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Defendant No. 3, leading to the plaintiff’s appeal to the High Court, which was subsequently dismissed. Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave, seeking redress against the High Court’s ruling.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court Observed and Held as Follows:

• The Supreme Court considered the essential question of whether the plaintiff’s claim for partition of the plaint schedule property as a coparcenary had merit. The Court emphasized that while Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act recognizing unmarried daughters as coparceners was crucial, the pivotal issue was whether the property in question was available for partition as a coparcenary asset. The Court noted that the property’s status and availability for partition were the key factors, and the applicability of Section 29A was not the sole determining factor. The High Court, after evaluating relevant factors, ruled that the property wasn’t available for partition when Section 29A of the State Amendment came into effect and the SC concurred with this finding.
• The Court acknowledged that partition could occur without a written instrument, possibly through oral agreements or settlements. However, the circumstances and manner under which Defendants 1 and 2 became exclusive owners were not adequately disclosed by either the plaintiff or Defendants 1 and 2.
• The Court scrutinized Exhibit A3, a partial partition deed, which allocated property in Schedule A to Defendants 1 and 2 and Schedule B to the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted the property allotted to her without challenging the partition deed’s terms. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff needed to prove that the plaint schedule property was not only a coparcenary but remained so as of 25.03.1989 when Section 29A came into effect.
• While Section 29A established the plaintiff’s legal standing as a coparcener, it did not automatically warrant a partition unless the plaintiff could show that the prior partition (Exhibit A3) did not affect coparcenary rights. The Court considered the absence of evidence or pleadings to counter the presumption that Defendants 1 and 2 gained exclusive ownership of the suit schedule property according to Exhibit A3’s terms. As such, the Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving continued coparcenary status of the plaint schedule property.
• The Court, after an independent assessment, affirmed the conclusions of the lower courts, stating that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the plaint schedule property remained a coparcenary asset available for partition and ultimately dismissed the appeal with no order for costs.