TIRUPURASUNDARI AMMAL Vs. SRINIVASAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 18 of 1966 on the file of the court of the Subordinate judge of Thanjavur are the appellants herein. There was an undivided Hindu family consisting of one Kalyanasundaram Pillai, his son Sabapathy Pillai and his son srinivasam Pillai, the first defendant in the suit. There was a partition between them as evidenced by Ex. A-1 dated 21-4-1955. Under that partition, the joint family properties were divided into four schedules, A, B, C and D; A schedule was allotted to the share of Kalyanasundaram Pillai, B schedule was allotted to the share of Sabapathi Pillai, C schedule was allotted to the share of the first defendant Srinivasam Pillai, and D schedule was allotted to Sabapathi Pillai and srinivasam Pillai jointly. Sabapathi Pillai died on 5th December, 1962. The plaintiffs-appellants are his widow and three daughters, the first defendant is his son and the 18th defendant is his mother. The appellants herein instituted the suit claiming that to the half share in the D schedule which belonged to Sabapathi pillai, they alone were exclusively entitled and neither the first defendant srinivasam Pillai, nor the 18th defendant had any share therein. On the other hand, the case of defendants 1 and 18 was that all the six persons were entitled to inherit the share of the Sabapathi Pillai in the D schedule properties in equal shares. From what we have stated above, the suit as well as the present appeal is concerned with Sabapathi Pillai's half share in the D schedule properties and the reference to the share of the parties will be relatable to that half share only. The learned Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur held against the appellants and decreed the suit for partition of their 4/6th share, allotting 1/6th share to the first defendant and another 1/6th share to the 18th defendant. It is the correctness of this conclusion that is challenged before us in the present appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit.

(2.) THOUGH before the trial court, two contentions were put forward, namely, that 18th defendant had relinquished here share in the suit properties (which means the half share of Sabapathi Pillai in D schedule properties) in favour of the plaintiffs and that by a family arrangement entered into between the first defendant Srinivasam Pillai and the plaintiffs, the first defendant also had given up his share in Sabapathi Pillai's half share in favour of he plaintiffs, they are not repeated before us and the only contention that is advanced before us is on the basis of the constructions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Central act 30 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(3.) FOR the purpose of understanding the controversy it is desirable to set out section 6 of the Act in full and the same is as follows:--