ALAMELU AMMAL Vs. TAMIZH CHELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for partition in o. S. No. 75 of 1986 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruvannamalai. The brief facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are, one Krishna reddiar (Senior) had a son, by name, Govindasamy Reddiar and a daughter, by name, Rangammal. His wife was Venkattammal and she died in the year 1953. Govindasamy Reddiar, son of Krishna Reddiar (Sr.), died on 19. 4. 1964. Govindasamy Reddiar had one son, by name, Krishna Reddiar (Junior) and two daughters, namely, Rangammal and Pappathi. The wife of Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) is one Alamelu ammal, who is the first defendant in the suit. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.)'s sister Rangammal had a daughter, by name, Alamelu ammal and she is the fifth defendant in the suit. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.)'s another sister Pappathi ammal had a son, Devan and he is the sixth defendant. Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) had a son, by name, Subramaniam and two daughters, namely, Rathinam (2nd defendant)and Balaji @ Balammal (3rd defendant ). Subramaniam son of Krishna Reddiar (Jr.)died on 15. 2. 1986 leaving behind his wife, Tamilselvi and daughter, Krishna devi. The wife and the daughter of Subramaniam are the plaintiffs in the suit. Govindasamy Reddiar, father of Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) had a sister, by name, Rangammal and she died on 14. 8. 1957. She had a son, by name, Ellappa Reddiar who is the fourth defendant and his son Govindarajan is the seventh defendant. It is also relevant to mention here that Alamelu ammal, first defendant is the daughter of rangammal who is the daughter of Krishna Reddiar (Sr.) and Krishna Reddiar (Jr.) had married his paternal aunt's daughter, Alamelu ammal. For the purpose of convenience, we set out hereunder the genealogy tree of the family:- Krishn a Reddiar (Sr.) Venkattammal ---------------------------- Govindasamy Rangammal = --------------------- Chinnammal ------------------------ Alamelu (D1) Ellappa Reddiar (D4) Krishna Rangammal Pappathi Reddiar Govindarajan = Alamelu Devan (D7) Alamelu (D5) (D6) (D1) -------------------------- Subramanian Rathinam Balaji = (D2) (D3) Tamilselvi (P1) Krishna Devi (P2)

(2.) THE plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition claiming 5/8th share in the suit properties and also for delivery of possession and mesne profits and other incidental reliefs. In our view, it is not necessary to burden the judgment with various averments made in the plaint as well as the defence raised in the written statements as the points raised in the appeal are narrow. THEre is no dispute that the plaintiffs are entitled to a share, but the question is what would be the share which the plaintiffs are entitled to.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, kanpur, ETC. v. CHANDER SEN (100 L. W. 347) and YUDHISHTER v. ASHOK KUMAR (100 l. W. 356) has held that the position of old law has been affected by section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, therefore, after the Act, when the son inherited the property in the situation contemplated by section 8, he does not take it as Kartha of his own undivided family but takes it in his individual capacity. THErefore the properties which devolved on Subramaniam under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act are not coparcenary properties or joint family properties in the hands of Subramaniam vis-a-vis his son/daughter.