KARUPPANA GOUNDER Vs. CHINNA NACHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal with the Cross Objections is before us on a reference made by Ismail, J. The question which was raised before the learned Judge resulting in the matter being placed before a Bench is whether an unmarried daughter of a hindu who gets a share in his estate would still be entitled for a provision for her marriage expenses in a suit for partition. One Kandasami Gounder who died on 26-9-1964 was the karta of a Hindu joint family. His only son is Karuppana gounder, the first defendant in the suit for partition instituted by one of the daughters of the said Kandasami Gounder in the court of the District Munsif, palani. Kandasami Gounder left his widow, Sellammal, (who has been impleaded as the 6th defendant in the suit) and five daughters apart from his Karuppanna. The eldest of the five daughters by name Chinna Nachammal is the plaintiff and the other four daughters have been impleaded as defendants 2 to 5 respectively. All the daughters except the last one by name Subbathal (5th defendant in the suit) have already been married.

(2.) UNDER Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (Act 30 of the 1956), the interest of Kandasami Gounder in the joint family properties would not go to his son by survivorship but devolve on his widow, son and daughters. As per explanation 1 to the section, the interest of Kandasami Gounder shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death and therefore what devolved on his widow, son and daughters is admittedly the half share in all the family properties. It is not in dispute that out of the entirety of the joint family properties, the widow and the five daughters would each be entitled to a 1/14th share and the son would take 8/14th share (7/14 representing his interest in the joint family properties plus 1/14 ). Subbathal (5th defendant), the unmarried daughter, contended that provision should be made towards her marriage expenses. Though this had been resisted by the first defendant, the courts below have held that provision should be made towards her marriage expenses from out of the entire joint family properties and fixed a sum of Rs. 2,500 as the proper provision in that record.

(3.) THE second appeal has been filed by the first defendant as well as his wife who has been impleaded as the 7th defendant in the suit. There are certain other questions in dispute between the parties with which the 7th defendant is concerned and we would come to that a little later. The question of law raised before Ismail J. , when the matter came up before the learned Judge is that by virtue of the provisions contained in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Act 78 of 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act), the unmarried daughter who gets a share in her father's estate is not entitled to a provision for her marriage expenses. As there is no precedent in this court on the point raised, the learned Judge thought that it would be better if the matter is dealt with by a bench if the matter is dealt with by a Bench and that is how it is before us. The question does not present any difficulty at all. We are quite clear that in the present case the unmarried daughter who gets a 1/7 share in her father's estate (1/14 share in the entire joint family properties) is not entitled for a provision being made for marriage expenses.