Madras High Court Delivers Judgment in First Appeal Against Preliminary Decree in Partition Suit. Court Examines Applicability of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to Succession Opened Before 1956 and Daughter's Right to Share in Agricultural Land.

First Appeal under Section 96 CPC against judgment and decree in a suit for partition and permanent injunction

Appellants (defendants) seek to set aside the preliminary decree granting plaintiff half share and permanent injunction

Trial court decreed suit in favour of plaintiff holding she is entitled to share as daughter under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, relying on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma

Trial court (I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore) vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2023 in O.S.No.543 of 2012 decreed the suit, granting plaintiff half share and permanent injunction

Whether the plaintiff is born to the 1st wife of the Subbiah Gounder? Whether it is true that the 1st wife of Subbiah Gounder died in the year 1939 as claimed by the defendants? Whether the plaintiff has right to claim share in the suit properties? Whether the alleged Will executed by the 2nd wife of Subbiah Gounder is true and binding on the plaintiff? Whether the settlement deed dated 27.07.2011 alleged to be executed by the 1st defendant is binding on the plaintiff? Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as claimed by the defendants? Whether the 5th defendant is not a necessary party to the suit? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the share claimed for? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought for? What other reliefs is the plaintiff entitled to?

Trial court erred in applying Vineeta Sharma to pre-1956 succession Father died in 1945, before 1956 Act, so daughter has no share Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 not applicable to agricultural lands until 1947, so Thangammal got no share Varthamana letter shows plaintiff's consent to alienation Thangammal's Will dated 25.07.2011 validly bequeathed her share to defendants 2-4 Settlement deed dated 27.07.2011 by first defendant validly transferred his share to defendants 2-4 Plaintiff's claim barred by acquiescence Inconsistent pleas can be taken by defendants

Trial Court, finding that the daughter is also entitled to a share in the suit properties, taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, reported in 2020-5-LW 300, found that the date of death of the father would be irrelevant and decreed the suit granting a preliminary decree of partition, declaring the plaintiff's share as one half and also granting permanent injunction. Mr.S.R.Raghunathan, learned Counsel for the appellant would firstly contend that the trial Court has committed a grave error in applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineetha Sharma's case, without noticing that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was relating only to succession under the 1956 Act and would not in any manner affect succession, which has opened prior to the commencement of the 1956 Act. Subbiah Gounder had died in the year 1945, his second wife Thangammal would not get any share in the suit properties and the entire suit properties would fall only on the shoulders of the first defendant, the only male heir of the Subbiah Gounder.

Plaintiff filed O.S.No.543 of 2012 for partition and permanent injunction before I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. Defendants filed written statements. Trial conducted with evidence. Trial court decreed suit on 31.07.2023 granting plaintiff half share and permanent injunction. Defendants filed First Appeal A.S.No.770 of 2023 along with C.M.Ps. Appeal heard, reserved for judgment on 27.02.2026, delivered on 10.04.2026.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 96
• Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
• Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937: