Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

BEFORE THE
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

CASE CONCERING
SUCCESSION IN HINDU JOINT FAMILY

Appellants: Amudha Rani, Vijayalakshmi, Shanthi alias

Ramaprabha

Vs.
Respondent:

K. Veeraraghavan alias K.V. Raghavan and Ors.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SUDHANSHU LATA
ROLL NO.171
SECTION C
SEMESTER- III

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

Table Of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................4
STATUTES:...........................................................................................................................4
BOOKS:.................................................................................................................................4
LIST OF CASES........................................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................................................6
ISSUES RAISED.......................................................................................................................8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS................................................................................................9
WRITTEN PLEADINGS.........................................................................................................10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF...........................................................................................................13

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. &
2. %
3. AIR
4. Ed.
5. Honble
6. i.e.
7. No.
8. Ors.
9. p.
10. SC
11. SCC
12. Sec.
13. v.
14. Ltd.

And
per cent
All India Reporter
Edition
Honourable
That is
Number
Others
Page
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Section
Versus
Limited

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:
Hindu Succession Act,1956

BOOKS:
1. BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY
2. M.P JAIN
3. PARAS DIWAN, FAMILY LAW

WEBSITES

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.indiankanoon.com

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

LIST OF CASES
1.
2.
3.
4.

Shalini Raut & Ors v Milind Raut And Dr.Gautam Raut & Ors
Anar Devi and Ors vs Parmeshwari Devi And Ors.
K.Revathi vs G.Diwakar
S.Seshachalam vs S.Deenadayalan

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. One Kandaswamy Naicker, who died in the year 1955, had three sons, namely,
Murugesan, Venkatachalam and K. Veeraraghavan (respondent No. 1). One
Meenakshi Ammal was the wife of Veeraraghavan. Three daughters of Meenakshi
Ammal and Veeraraghavan are the appellants and the four sons are the respondent 2 to
5 respectively.
2. After the death of Kandaswamy Naicker there was a partition, wherein Murugesan
separated himself and the other two brothers continued jointly. On 17.7.1971, the first
respondent no.1 executed a release deed in favour of his wife Meenakshi Ammal as
well as all the children, including the appellants, releasing his share in the joint family
properties.
3. Subsequently, under the release deed given by the respondent 1, dated 27.12.1971,
there was a partition between Venkatachalam and the family members of
Veeraraghavan. The property described in 'B' schedule of such document was allotted
to the family members of Veeraraghavan.
4. Subsequently by the registered partition deed dated 23.04.1976, where under the
family members of the respondent 1, including his wife and seven children divided
the property and described that division via schedule A to H. The respondent no. 1
had not been allotted any property as he had already given the release deed of the
property.
5. The item no. 1 described in schedule A of the plaint is property allotted to Meenakshi
Ammal during the partition of the joint coparcenary property and the property
described as item no. 2 in the same schedule is not been specified in the partition but
was described as to be partitioned as per the WILL of Meenakkshi.
6. The property described in the schedule B of the plaint is the property inherited to the
Meenakshi by her mother. Meenakshi Ammal died intestate on 30.01.1982 leaving
behind Kalyan Mandapam which is item 2 in the schedule A and that was constructed
out of family funds Meenakshi had received during partition of coparcenary property
of her husband.
After the death of the Meenakshi Ammal defendant 2 to 5 which are the sons of the

7.

Meenakshi Ammal and the respondent no. 1, they had received the 4/5 th of the
coparcenary as they were the coparceners, when the division of the family property
took place, defendant no.2 to 5 partitioned the property discussed in the schedule of

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

the plaint (which was their mothers ) without giving any part in partition to the
appellants 1 to 3.
8. In the trial court the defendants contended that in the plaint A schedule the property is
joint family property and the appellants not being coparceners are not entitled to that
property and the item no. 2 of the schedule B property (which was inherited to
Meenakshi Ammal from her mother) had been sold by the respondents.
9. The respondents also declare that the release deed issued by the respondent no.1
relinquishing his share in the property is invalid which is not so. It has been also
indicated by the respondents that in respect of Kalyana Mandapam(item 2 schedule A)
the plaintiffs cannot claim any share as such property was a joint family property built
out of income from the joint family property.
10. At the end the disputes and misunderstanding which lead to the plaintiffs seeking
recourse and hence the case is brought before the honble court where I as the counsel
on behalf of the respondent seek for the appeal will be disallowed by the honble high
court and the justice will be delivered.

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the appellants have share over the entire property described in
schedule A and B?
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the joint family property as a
coparceners?

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the appellants have share over the entire property described in
schedule A and B?
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the joint family property as
coparceners?

1.

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS
1. Whether the appellants have share over the entire property described in
schedule A and B?
The property described in item no. 2 of schedule A is the property the rights of
which had been vested under Meenakshi Ammal, when the partition took place by
Ex. A-2 deed dated 23-4-1976. Item no. 2 of plaint A schedule is a Kalyana
Mandapam erected on the property described in the same plaint. The said
mandapam was erected out of the joint family funds. According to Hindu Personal
Laws properties which have been constructed, purchased etc out of the joint
family funds are considered to be joint family properties. It is thereby established
that such property is joint family property.

And the property described in Schedule B of the plaint is inherited by the

Meenakshi Ammal from her mother Sivagami Ammal. All of the property in both
the schedule once came under the property rights of the Meenakshi Ammal will
devolve in the interest of her heirs by way of testamentary and intestate succession
and not by survivorship.

After The Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005, the provision became clearer
as it is laid by the provision that Every coparcener is held to be entitled to the
share upon partition. A wife can not demand partition but if a partition does take
place she is entitled to receive share equal to that of her son and can enjoy the
same separately even from her husband. Section 6 of the Act 1 provided that the
devolution of the interest will be by survivorship. However it also came with a
proviso that if such Hindu has left surviving female relative his interest shall
devolve by testamentary or intestate succession and not by survivorship. It created
the theory of notional partition.
Further in the case of Shalini Raut & Ors v Milind Raut And Dr.Gautam Raut
& Ors

the honble High Court of Bombay held that after the death of the

1 Hindu Succession (amendment) Act 2005

2 2013(5)BomCR430
10

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

coparcener, his or her interests in the ancestral property devolved to his or her
sons and daughters( after the amendment of 2005) by means of testamentary
succession and not by survivorship as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Until the Amendment of 2005, daughters and other female relatives were
considered as heirs and were entitled to their shares by means of notional partition
only upon the death of the male relative. However, the amendment has given them
the status of coparceners, who are equally entitled to their shares in the ancestral
property by succession.
In the case of Anar Devi And Ors vs Parmeshwari Devi And Ors the honble
supreme court held that the partition of the coparcenary property on the demise of
the person having interest in the coparcenery property will be operative under the
theory of notional partition after the amendment in the Act 3. The facts of the case
were One Nagar Mal adopted Nemi Chand as his son. Mal died in 1989 without a
will and his two daughters claimed equal share along with the adopted son Chand.
Courts below accepted one-third partition of the properties amongst all the three
wards of the deceased.
On appeal, the Supreme Court said since Mal and Chand had formed the
coparcenary, a notional partition should be done as it having been effected just
before the death of Mal.
The apex court concluded that 50 per cent of the property would have to be
notionally partitioned between Mal and his adopted son Chand on 50-50 basis and
after the death of Mal his share of the 50 per cent property should be divided
equally amongst the three heirs. In other words, the two daughters would be
entitled to one sixth each of the suit property.
Here in our case the property in question is partly coparcenary property vested
with the wife of the respondent 1 and the other half property (schedule B) is
inherited to Meenakshi from her mother. The property in schedule A will devolve
in the interest of all the children equally by notional partition theory and the
division of property under schedule B will take place by way of the provision 15
of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.
The section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act read as
(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the
rules set out in section 16 : (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the
3 Hindu Succession (amendment) Act 2005

11

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon
the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon
the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall
devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the
children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to
in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father;
and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her
father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased
(including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other
heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs
of the husband.
Hence, according to this section the daughters of the female are entitled to the
property inherited by the female from her maternal side. So, in both the properties
the appeallants are entitled to equal share in the property described in Schedule
A and B
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the joint family property as a
coparceners?
In the concerned case the appeallant 3 was unmarried when the Tamilnadu
(amendment) Act 1989 became operative Section 29A of the Hindu Succession
Act, a part of Chapter II-A, was inserted by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of
1990 with effect from 25.3.1989. As per Section 29-A(i), the daughter of a
coparcener shall become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as a
son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she had been a son
and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the
son. As per Section 29-A(ii), the daughter shall be entitled to the same share as
allottable to a son. However, as per Section 29-A (iv), nothing in Chapter II-A
shall apply to a daughter married before the date of the commencement of the
Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989
After the commencement of the act the unmarried sisters and daughters in the
HUF became coparceners and entitled to equal share in the property as the other
coparceners.
12

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

The same has been laid in the cases of K.Revathi vs G.Diwakar4 and
S.Seshachalam vs S.Deenadayalan 5
So by the virtue of this amendment appealant 3 is entitled to equal share in the
property of Hindu United family as her brothers.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore, in the lights of facts states, authorities cited and arguments advanced the
respondent humbly prays before this Honble Supreme Court of India to adjudge and declare
that:
1. The appeal should be disallowed.
And pass any other order which this Honble court may deem fit in the interests of equity,
justice and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SUDHANSHU LATA

4
5 2009-4-LW439
13

OCTOBER 8, 2015

Amudha Rani & Ors. V. K. VeerRaghavan & Ors.

14