BAGIRATHI Vs. S MANIVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in brief are as follows :-

(2.) THE first contention is that the half share of Doraisamy having been settled by his widow Karpagambal in favour of Sundarajan, at least half share of the property must be taken to be the separate property of Sundarajan and, therefore, in respect of such half share, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 would each be entitled to 1/8th share, though in respect of the other half share belonging to Appadurai, on his death, Sundarajan had 1/3rd share and the parties had 1/8th in such share. The other contention is to the effect that the Hindu Succession Act was amended in 2005 and since the property is yet to be divided by metes and bounds, the provisions of the amended Act would be applicable and, therefore, the daughters should be treated as coparceners having equal share in the property as that of a son.

(3.) IT is to be noted that the first contention has been raised for the first time in this Review Application. In the plaint, the main plea of the present petitioners, who were the plaintiffs, was to the effect that even though the superstructure was the joint family property of the two brothers, namely, Appadurai and Doraisamy, the land on which such superstructure was constructed had been purchased by Sundarajan from out of his own income and, therefore, the entire property i. e. , the land and the superstructure standing on the same, should be treated as the separate property of Sundarajan. The other point raised was to the effect that the disputed property having been allotted to Sundarajan in the partition between Sundarajan, his brother Ranganathan, sister Radhabai, the property allotted to Sundarajan must be taken to be his separate property.