VENKITAMMAL Vs. MUTHUKRISHNA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal coming on for hearing on Thursday the 11th day of March, 1965 Friday, the 26th day of March 1965 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following judgment:

(2.) THE question raised in this appeal looks to me is settled law, but, as considerable argument has been directed in the matter, I shall deal with it in greater detail than is strictly necessary. The contention raised is that while daughters succeeding to their father, as a class, take the estate as joint tenants with rights to survivorship inter se, daughters, succeeding to their mother, inherit the estate only as tenants in common, without rights of survivorship inter se; and for this proposition reliance is placed particularly upon certain observations in karuppai v. Sankaranarayanan Chetty, (1904) ILR 27 Mad 300 (FB ).

(3.) THE facts which have given rise to this controversy and must be taken as final for the purpose of this second appeal may be briefly set out. The property in the suit belonged to one Venkatalakshmiammal, who died somewhere about 1898, leaving two sons Subbiah Naidu, and Venkatasamy Naidu, and three daughters, rukmaniammal, Venkatammal and Pappammal. After the death of venkatalakshimiammal, the two sons dealt with her property as if belonged to them solely, and under Ex. B-7, dated 5-12-1918, Venkataswami conveyed his share in the property to his brother Subbiah Naidu. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit out of which this second appeal arises are the son and widow of Subbiah Naidu. The daughter Rukmani Ammal died 0n 28-6-1953, leaving two daughters ramganayaki and Rajammal defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. The plaintiffs in the suit, who are the appellants now in the second appeal, are the other two surviving daughters of Venkatalakshmiammal. It is also to be taken as established beyond challenge that after the death of Venkatalakshiammal, the property of venkatalakshmiammal was held by the sons Subbiah Naidu and Venkataswami naidu, adversely to the claims of the daughters. After the purchase by Subbiah Naidu of Venkatasami's share under Ex. B-7, subbiah Naidu solely and after his death on 21-10-1951, his heirs have been holding and enjoying the property in their own right. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for partition and recovery of possession of the one-third share in the property, which according to the plaintiffs belonged to the daughter rukmaniammal and which they claimed to be entitled to on her death in 1953 as reversionary heirs. It is contended that even though with reference to their own two-third share in the property they may be barred by adverse possession and limitation, in regard to the share of Rukmaniammal on her death, it reverted back to Venkatalakshmiammal and as per stirdhana heirs, they were entitled to the property. The contention is that the three daughters inherited to their mother as tenants in common and that on the death of any one of them inheritance in respect of the share of the deceased must be traced from the mother. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the succession opened and cause of action for the suit arose only on the death of Rukmaniammal on 28-6-1953, and that, as next reversioners, under Art. 141, of the Indian Limitation Act, of 1908, the plaintiff's were within time. On appeal, the learned District Judge, has, accepting the contention that the three daughters formed one class of limited owners and took jointly in the same manner as co-widows by survivorship, held that the suit was barred. It was taken as settled law, that when there are more daughters than one, they succeeded jointly with rights of survivorship.