NANGAMMAL Vs. N DESIYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition, claiming 7/1 Oth share to the property. The plaintiff's case is that one Nanjunda Gounder was the owner of the property who died intestate on 7. 11. 1953, his wife the second defendant also subsequently died. The first defendant is his only son and the plaintiffs are daughters. Among the plaintiffs, the third and fourth plaintiffs are unmarried while the second defendant mother died on 8. 8. 1983. The Trial Court while holding that the property is an ancestral property, has granted 4/10th share to the plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court has confirmed the said decree and judgment. Against the concurrent findings by both the Courts, the plaintiffs have filed the present Appeal. While admitting the second Appeal, this Court has raised the following substantial question of law :

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would submit that while it is held that the suit property is ancestral property, by virtue of the amendment brought by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 to Hindu Succession Act with effect from 25. 3. 1989, by which the Section 29-A was inserted to the Hindu Succession Act, an unmarried daughter of the Hindu Coparcener is recorded as coparcener by birth. In the present case, since the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are unmarried, they are entitled for 1/4 share each. Apart from the first defendant being the son entitled for another 1/4 share and the second defendant deceased mother entitled for 1/4 share. Subsequent to the death of the mother, namely, the second defendant, by sharing her l/4th share equally by the plaintiffs and the first defendant, the first defendant's share will be 3/10th while the first and second plaintiff's share will be 1/20 each and the third and fourth plaintiffs' 3/10 each and totally put together the plaintiffs are entitled for 7/10 shares. The courts below ignored the provisions of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act by which the unmarried daughter is recorded as coparcener by birth has granted 1/2 share to the first defendant and another 1/2 share to the second defendant mother, while not giving any share to the plaintiffs, being the daughters. It was after death of the mother, her share was devolved on the plaintiffs and the first defendant and on that basis all the plaintiffs were given jointly 4/10 shares while the first defendant was given 6/10 share.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellants, under Section 29-A of the hindu Succession Act, the devaluation of shares should be equal to that of the son along with the unmarried daughters.