Name of the case: Sachidhanandam since (D) through his LRS. Vs. E. Vanaja and Ors

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3667 of 2018

Name of Judges: Prashant Kumar Mishra, B.R. Gavai, Hima Kohli

Order Date: 6/11/23

Facts of the Case:

• Plaintiff Respondent 1 is Vanaja, is the widow and sole heir of Elangovan, the third son of Nallathambi Chettiar otherwise referred to as D1. The defendants in this case are Nallathambi Chettiars sons, Sachithanandham, Mathivan, Kannpiran, his daughters – Manimegalai, Mangaiyarkarasi, and Gettha.
• The case concerns itself with property as per the schedules – B, C and C1, which the plaintiff, Vanaja prefers a suit of partition and suit for mesne profits. The properties listed in ‘B’ schedule are Nallathambi Chettiar’s self-acquired assets, while the ‘C’ schedule properties were acquired by defendant nos. 1 to 4 using income generated from the ‘B’ schedule properties. Additionally, the ‘C1’ schedule properties are considered joint family assets. Consequently, the plaintiff is eligible for a 1/8th share in all these properties.
• The defendant, while admitting the shared relationship between the parties, claimed that the plaintiff, Elangovan’s wife, could only claim a share in respect of her deceased husband’s share in the joint family property. His son had a 1/8th share in his father’s estate, and this upon his death the scheduled property devolved equally on his wife and then his mother. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to 1/16th of the share of Schedule property B and C1.
• It has been established that the Schedule B share and Item No. 15 and 16 under the C Schedule property were in the name of the plaintiff’s husband and the plaintiff is entitled to those shares. However the defendants argued that the rest of the C Schedule property cannot be classified as joint family property and additionally has been bought as private property by the defendants 2, 3, 4 and 8.  To affirm this the defendants further proved that no income from the joint family properties has been used to purchase the individually held properties. Thus the plaintiff is not entitled to a share in those portions.
• The Trial court ruled in favour of this. The Trial court explicitly determined that the properties outlined in schedules ‘B’ and ‘C’ are collectively considered family assets, and the plaintiff has the right to a 1/8th share. The first appellate court, however, ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/16th share in the ‘B’ and ‘C1’ schedule properties. Regarding the ‘C’ schedule properties, the first appellate court concluded that they do not qualify as joint family properties on account of the nature of their acquisition and are, therefore, not subject to partition.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed and held as follows:

• The Supreme court in view of the substantial questions of law decided by the High Court held that the admission that the property was self-acquired, and out of the family income was contestable, in light of the evidence available that claimed that the properties were in usage and in joint possession by both the parties and thus the court has to take into account that status. Thus, the properties, though on the face self acquired are joint family property on account of it being in joint possession by both the parties.
• The Supreme Court reviewed the view of the High Court and in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act held that the High Court was incorrect in allocating 1/16th share to the plaintiff out of the mother in laws share.
• By considering both Section 15(1)(a) and Section 16 of the Act together, it becomes evident that in the case of a female Hindu passing away without a will, her property shall primarily pass on to sons, daughters (including descendants of any deceased son or daughter), and the husband. As a result, the plaintiff, being the widow of a predeceased son, does not possess the initial right or claim to inherit any portion of her mother-in-law’s share.
• Supreme Court, modifying the decision of the High Courts, held that plaintiff 1 is not entitled to 1/16th share of her mother in laws share of the property. This ruling brings clarity to the distribution of the contested assets in accordance with Section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act.