RUKMANI Vs. DELHIBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/plaintiffs who filed a suit for partition of the suit property into 24 equal shares and allot five shares to them on the ground that they have relinquished the share of the father in the presence of Panchayathar under Exhibit B-4 dated 29.5.1967 and therefore, the plaintiffs had no successor to claim the right of partition. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs had preferred the appeal.

(2.) THE joint character of the property is not in dispute. THE relationship between the parties is also not in dispute. Mr. Gopalakrishna Naidu had two wives viz. Kanagammal and Saraswathy. Through his first wife, he had a son Govindarajulu Naidu and daughter Govindammal, who is the second defendant. Govindarajulu Naidu died leaving behind his legal heirs who are defendants 3 to 6. Saraswathy, the second wife had five daughters who are the plaintiffs and one son who is the first defendant. THEy made a claim to share the property on the basis that their father at a notational partition on his death was entitled to an undivided 1/3rd share. THE remaining property would go to two of his sons equally and on Gopalakrishnan-s death, as per Section 8 of the Indian Succession Act, each of them was entitled to 1/24th share and together to a 5/24th share.

(3.) MR. M.V. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants relied on judgment in Valliammal v. Muniappan (2008) 6 MLJ 964 : (2008) 4 CTC 773 that the amendment Act 39 of 2005 to Indian Succession Act was prospective in nature and the suit having been filed by the plaintiffs for share in the coparcenary property are not entitled to stake their claims on the ground that the suit had been instituted and the succession operated even prior to coming into vogue of the Amendment Act 39 of 2005.