PECHIAMMAL Vs. VEERAPPA THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOES the coparcennary property in the hands of the last male-holder fall within the scope of the Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act (Central Act II of 1929)is the question that arises for determination in these two second appeals.

(2.) THE facts as admitted and found by the courts below and which are not challenged before me are as follows: One A Kandaswami was the original owner of the properties which are the subject matter of these two second appeals. His wife was one Rangammal. The said Kandaswami died in the year 1912 leaving behind him his widow Rangammal and five children, namely, two sons by name K. Arunachalam and K. Kandaswami and three daughters Palaniammal, Augnammal and Pachiammal. The son K. Arunachalam died somewhere about 36 years ago unmarried. His brother K. Kandaswami also died within a few months thereafter unmarried. Rangammal herself died in 1953 leaving behind the three daughters mentioned above. One of her daughters, namely, Pachiammal has three sons by name Ganapathi Gounden, Sethupathi Gounden and Kandaswami Gounden. O. S. 195 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, was instituted by Angammal, one of the three daughters of A. Kandaswami and rangammal, for partition and separate possession of her one-third share of the properties belonging to A. Kandaswami and the other two sisters were impleaded as parties to the suit. The second defendant in that suit, namely, Pachiammal supported the case of the plaintiff and the first defendant, namely, Palaniammal was the only contesting defendant therein. She put forward several contentions to negative the case of the plaintiff therein and ultimately all those contentions were negatived and the said suit, O. S. 195 of 1963, was decreed on 11-8-1966 holding that the three daughters of A. Kandaswami were entitled to succeed to the properties of A. Kandaswami and therefore the plaintiff therein was entitled to a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for. Against this decree and judgment, a. S. 412 of 1966 was preferred to the First Additional Distinct Judge, Coimbatore.

(3.) IN the meantime, it is alleged that when steps were taken to execute the decree in O. S. 195 of 1963, the first defendant therein, namely, Palaniammal set up ganapathi Gounden, son of Pachiammal, to file the other suit, namely O. S. 33 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, to claim the entire properties as belonging to him and to his brothers alleging that the Hindu Law of inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 (Central Act II of 1929) hereinafter referred to as the Act will not apply to the properties of K. Kandaswami and therefore under the Hindu Law as it stood prior to the amendment by the said Act, his sister's sons were entitled to succeed to the properties of the maternal uncle and in this case of K. Kandaswami. To that suit, he impleaded his mother and two maternal aunts and his two brothers as parties. That suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif on 14-12-1965 holding that the Act was applicable to the properties of K. Kandaswami and consequently the sisters of K. Kandaswami were the preferential heirs than the sister's sons. Against this judgment and decree, ganapathi Gounder preferred A. S. 290 of 1966 on the file of the District Judge's court, Coimbatore.