High Court Error: Appeal Allowed for Ancestral Property Partition

The High Court erred in dismissing the appeal at the admission stage. The appellants were not entitled to claim partition in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, as they were married before the amendment. The court determined the appellants' share in the property after their parents' deaths, with each daughter entitled to 1/6 and the son to 2/3. The validity of sale deeds executed by Respondent No. 1 was upheld, but the appellants were entitled to their legitimate share with interest. The appeal was partially allowed, granting the appellants shares through succession and in the properties sold.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal at the admission stage.
2. Whether the appellants were entitled to claim partition in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989.
3. Determination of the appellants' share in the property after the death of their parents.
4. Validity of the sale deeds executed by Respondent No. 1 in favor of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal at the admission stage:
The appellants argued that the High Court failed to appreciate that no limitation is prescribed for filing a suit for partition by co-sharers, and thus, the suit for partition cannot be dismissed as barred by time. They contended that the dismissal of the suit based on the non-filing within 12 years from the date of dispossession was incorrect, especially as there was no proof of dispossession and the respondents failed to prove ouster.

2. Whether the appellants were entitled to claim partition in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989:
The concept of ancestral property was discussed, highlighting that property inherited up to four generations of the male lineage is considered ancestral. The amendment in 1989 allowed daughters to become coparceners in their own right. However, the appellants were married before the commencement of the amendment, disqualifying them from claiming partition as coparceners. The court referred to the precedent set in Prakash & Ors. vs. Phulavati & Ors., which held that the rights under the amendment apply to living daughters of living coparceners as of 9th September 2005.

3. Determination of the appellants' share in the property after the death of their parents:
The court calculated the division of the property left by Late T.G. Basuvan, who had ancestral properties but no self-acquired properties. Upon his death, his half share would devolve through succession. The widow, daughters, and son would each get a quarter of the half share (1/8). Upon the widow's death, her 1/8 share would further devolve equally among the daughters and son. Thus, each daughter's total share would be 1/6, and the son's total share would be 2/3.

4. Validity of the sale deeds executed by Respondent No. 1 in favor of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3:
The court upheld the sale deeds dated 03.04.1996 and 24.08.1998, stating they should not be disturbed. However, the appellants were entitled to their legitimate share of the property sold, calculated based on the rate at the date of sale deeds with 9% interest per annum until payment or transfer of property.

Conclusion:
The court partially allowed the appeal, concluding that the appellants were not entitled to a share in the coparcenary property as they were not coparceners under the 1989 amendment. However, they were entitled to their share through succession after their parents' deaths. The appellants could claim their legitimate share in the properties sold by Respondent No. 1, either in money or equivalent property. The parties were to bear their own costs.

---