SARASU Vs. BASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in I.A. No. 421 of 1992 in O.S. No. 166 of 1979. The said LA. was filed by the revision petitioner/12th defendant in the suit under Order 20, Rule 18 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to set aside the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1987.

(2.) THE petitioner contended that the plaintiff had prayed for a declaration and an injunction and that the petitioner was a minor and did not know anything about the proceedings. About seven years prior to fhe filing of this petition, she had received summons after she had attained majority. At that time, defendants 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 under whose care she was living, had promised her to attend to the proceedings on her behalf also. THE said defendants being her brothers and she being a woman who was not acquainted with such worldly matters had belief in them. Recently, the respondents are trying to forcibly occupy the suit premises by excluding her with police aid. THEreafter, she had enquired into the matter with the assistance of her counsel and she came to know that the suit had been decided ex parte against her and all her brothers have obtained a decree in their favour in a collusive manner by excluding her. THE petitioner further contended that by virtue of an amendment to the Hindu Succession Act in the year 1989, she had become a member of the family and hence, entitled to equal share. She was unable to raise her objection to the preliminary decree as she had no rights then. Now as a result of the change in the law of succession, she is entitled to state her objections in a written statement. She is entitled to one-fourth share in both "A" and "B" schedule properties and the Court is entitled to take note of the amended provisions under the Hindu Succession Act and to grant a decree accordingly by readjusting the shares in the preliminary decree. It was further pleaded that as a result of the said amendment the judgment and decree had become null and void and inoperative.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. R. Subramanian, would seek to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurupad v. Hirabai (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1239 = 91 L.W. 169 S.N.) in which also the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.