H. Vasanthi vs A. Santha (Dead) Through LRs. and Others
Background
The appellant, an unmarried daughter, sued for a one-third share in a Chennai family property, claiming coparcenary status under Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment), which from 25.03.1989 gave unmarried daughters coparcenary rights. However, in 1980 she and other family members had already executed a registered partial partition deed (Exhibit-A3) allotting the disputed property to her father and brother, who later agreed to sell it to a third party; that sale was upheld through earlier litigation up to the Supreme Court. The trial court and the Madras High Court both rejected her partition claim, holding the property had already ceased to be joint family property by the time Section 29A took effect.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the real question was not merely whether Section 29A applied, but whether the property still had the character of coparcenary property available for partition as of 1989, and it found the plaintiff had accepted the benefit of the 1980 partial partition (taking her own allotted "B Schedule" share) without ever legally challenging Exhibit-A3, which had allotted the disputed property exclusively to her father and brother. Having failed to prove the property remained joint family property, she could not later claim it belonged to a coparcenary of which she was now a recognized member. The Court agreed with the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court and found no reason to interfere, dismissing the civil appeal.
Lesson Learnt
A statutory right (such as a daughter's coparcenary status) cannot revive a claim over property that a family member has already accepted as partitioned and belonging to someone else, accepting the benefit of a partition deed without challenging it forecloses a later claim to the very property given away under that deed.