C.R.P.No.5211 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.01.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.No.5211 of 2024 1.A.Muthammal 2.A.Jayakumar .. Petitioners vs S.Sathyapriya .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 26.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.73 of 2023 by the Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Veeraraghavan ORDER This civil revision petition arises out of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Mettupalayam in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.73 of 2023 dated 26.09.2024. 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5211 of 2024 2. O.S.No.73 of 2023 is a suit for partition and separate possession launched by the daughter of the first civil revision petitioner. The plaint proceeds that there was one Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy, was possessed of joint family properties. The plaintiff, as the grand daughter of the said Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy, pleaded that she is entitled to a share in the joint family properties. She obviously relies upon amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 3. The plea of the defendants is that the property left behind by Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy was partitioned amongst his legal heirs. This was by way of a registered partition deed dated 07.10.2022, registered in Document No.1687 of 2022. The defendants further urged that on the death of Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy, Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act kicked in and amended Section 6 is inapplicable. Therefore, it was urged that the first defendant receives the property as her absolute property and therefore, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to present a suit for partition. 4. Soon after service of the summons, an application was taken out for rejection of plaint in I.A.No.2 of 2023. The plea of 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5211 of 2024 defendants 1 and 2 is that the suit property had been received as the absolute property by the first revision petitioner. Hence, there is no cause of action for the suit for partition. Learned Trial Judge dismissed the said application, against which, the present revision. 5. I heard Mr.P.Veeraraghavan for the civil revision petitioner. 6. Mr.P.Veeraraghavan invited my attention to Section 6(2) of Hindu Succession Act, and pointed out that any property acquired by a female Hindu under Section 6(1) should be received by her as an incident of co-parcenery and is capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition. Therefore, he pleads that the said property in the hands of the first civil revision petitioner is not an ancestral property but her self acquired property. 7. I have carefully considered the submission of Mr.Veeraraghavan. 8. At the outset, I should point out that I am dealing with an application for rejection of plaint. In such an application, I have to go as per the averments made in the plaint alone. The defence, however sterling in character they may be, is absolutely irrelevant 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5211 of 2024 at the time of consideration of such an application. 9. In the present case, in paragraph 2 of the plaint, the specific averments are found as hereunder: 'nkw;go jhth brhj;jhdJ thjpapd; jhahh; 1?k; gpujpthjpapd; gpJuhh;$pj tifapy; ghj;jpag;gl;l brhj;jhFk;/' 10. This pleading shows that Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy left behind ancestral properties. If Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy had left behind ancestral properties not only would the male co- parceners should be entitled to a share but females in the co- parcenary will also be entitled to a share. 11. Under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, on and from the date of the commencement of the Hindu Succession At, 2005, a daughter of a co-parcener becomes a co-parcener by birth, enjoying the same in the same manner as a son in ancestral property. 12. This shows that if Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy had ancestral properties, by virtue of amendment, the first civil revision 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5211 of 2024 petitioner shall take the property as a co-parcener and if that being so, her daughter would also have to be treated as a co-parcener. I should hasten to add, I am coming to this conclusion only for the purpose of dealing with this revision. Whether Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy left behind ancestral properties or the properties which were partitioned pursuant to the Document No.1687/2022 dated 07.10.2022 are self acquired properties are matters entirely to be decided after the trial is concluded. Whether Section 14 would apply to the case or not is also a matter of defence. It is open to the first defendant to take all such legal defences as it is open to her to defeat the case of the plaintiff. 13. Suffice it to say, in the light of the pleadings of the plaintiff that Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy had left behind ancestral properties, by virtue of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, the grand daughter being a female co-parcener would be entitled to maintain such a suit. 14. Mr.P.Veeraraghavan also points out that if that be the consideration, the share that the plaintiff claims viz., 1/3 share cannot be sustained. She would only be at best entitled to a further fractional share. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5211 of 2024 15. When a Court is dealing with a suit for partition, it is not going to decree the suit as prayed for. It will certainly have to calculate the share that the plaintiff would be entitled to if at all. The point of Mr.P.Veeraraghavan that on the death of Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy, there will be a notional partition for the share that comes into his hands is well taken. This means that Rangaiah Gowder @ Rangasamy had died intestate. This too requires evidence at the hands of the defendants. If a matter requires evidence certainly it cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint. As pointed out earlier, the reading of the plaint should show that there is a cause of action. Hence, this civil revision petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. 07.01.2025 Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No mmi To The Subordinate Judge, Mettupalayam. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.5211 of 2024 V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J. mmi C.R.P.No.5211 of 2024 07.01.2025 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis