Case Note & Summary
The plaintiffs, Vijaya (wife) and Harini Priya (daughter) of deceased Deivasigamani, filed a suit for partition claiming 1/4th share in 'A' schedule property (house property) and 1/2 share in 'B' schedule property, and also claimed that 'C' schedule property should be included in the partition. The 'A' schedule property originally belonged to Natesa Mudaliar, who died intestate leaving behind his wife Dhanalakshmi Ammal, defendants 1 to 3, and Deivasigamani as legal heirs. Dhanalakshmi also died intestate, and Deivasigamani died on 13.07.2007, leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. The 'B' and 'C' schedule properties were settled by Mylammal (mother of Natesa Mudaliar) in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and Deivasigamani through registered settlement deeds dated 14.12.1964 and 13.02.1973. The plaintiffs also alleged that Deivasigamani executed a Power of Attorney under undue influence of defendants 1 and 2. The Trial Court partly dismissed the suit, granting only 1/4th share in 'A' schedule property and denying any share in 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. The plaintiffs appealed. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share in 'A' schedule property as legal heirs of Deivasigamani, but not to any share in 'B' and 'C' schedule properties as those were specific gifts to the donees and not part of the coparcenary. The court also found no evidence of undue influence. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the Trial Court's decree.
Headnote
A) Hindu Law - Partition - Intestate Succession - Claim by Widow and Daughter - The plaintiffs claimed 1/4th share in 'A' schedule property as legal heirs of Deivasigamani, who was one of the four children of Natesa Mudaliar. The court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share in 'A' schedule property, as Deivasigamani died intestate and the property was inherited by his legal heirs. (Paras 3.1, 10) B) Hindu Law - Settlement Deed - Gift to Specific Donees - The 'B' and 'C' schedule properties were settled by Mylammal, grandmother, in favour of specific donees (defendants 1 and 2 and Deivasigamani) through registered settlement deeds. The court held that these properties are not part of the coparcenary and the plaintiffs cannot claim a share in them as legal heirs of Deivasigamani, as the settlement deeds were valid and not challenged. (Paras 3.2, 11) C) Evidence - Power of Attorney - Undue Influence - The plaintiffs alleged that Deivasigamani executed a Power of Attorney under undue influence of defendants 1 and 2. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove undue influence, and the Power of Attorney was not relevant to the partition claim. (Paras 3.3, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiffs, as legal heirs of the deceased Deivasigamani, are entitled to a share in the 'A', 'B', and 'C' schedule properties, and whether the settlement deeds executed by Mylammal in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and the deceased Deivasigamani are valid.
Final Decision
The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 07.10.2016 in O.S.No.11 of 2010 is confirmed. The plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share in 'A' schedule property only. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Partition suit
- Legal heir
- Intestate succession
- Settlement deed
- Power of attorney
- Undue influence
- Burden of proof
- Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
