GOVARDHANAN Vs. RAMADOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Zieved over the order of the trial Court passed in the application filed by the appellants for supplementary decree, claiming 1/3 share in the suit property, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts leading to file this appeal are as follows:- The suit property originally belonged to one Ramadoss Alias Subba Naidu and he had three sons and one daughter. The third son has filed the suit in O.S.No.25 of 2004, seeking relief of partition against two other brothers and father, wherein the sister was not included as a party. Subsequently, the sister was also impleaded as fourth defendant in the suit in I.A.No.258 of 2000. In the above suit, the fourth defendant set ex-parte. Accordingly, preliminary decree is passed for share. However, final decree has not been passed. At this stage, the said Ramadoss Alias Subba Naidu, father of the parties died on 13.02.2006 and the mother of the parties also died on 19.12.2013. The plaintiff also died on 13.09.2015, therefore, his legal heirs have been brought on record. At this stage, an application was taken by the legal heirs of the plaintiff in I.A.No.155 of 2016 in O.S.No.25 of 2004, seeking to pass a supplementary decree that they are entitled to 1/3 share instead of 1/4 share. Similarly, the fourth defendant / daughter of the said Ramadoss Alias Subba Naidu has filed an application in I.A.No.117 of 2017 in O.S.No.25 of 2004, seeking 1/4 share in view of the amendment of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. The trial Court, in its order dated 07.04.2018, has dismissed the application in I.A.No.155 of 2016 for supplementary decree for 1/3 share filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff and held that the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 4 are each entitled to 1/4 share. It is to be noted that the rights of the daughter of a coparcener also declared in the above supplementary decree. Such view of the matter, an application filed by the daughter in I.A.No.117 of 2017 was dismissed. Challenging the above, the present Appeal Suit is filed.