Much after the partition of the property devolved upon Class
I heirs of N. Ramakrishnan when each of the divided shares
became exclusive property of the cosharers and sold by father of
the appellant, without challenging the partition decree or the sale
deeds executed by father of the appellant, during the lifetime of
father, the suit for partition has been filed in the year 1997 on
behalf of the minor on the premise of inheritance as coparcener by birth. {Para 40}
41. Finally, in view of the general rule of succession in the case
of property of a male dying intestate, under the provisions of
Chapter II of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of N.
Ramakrishnan (grandfather of the appellant) devolved upon the
Class I heirs in the order of succession specified therein, and they
shall take the property simultaneously to the exclusion of all other
heirs. With the partition decree, the property of N. Ramachandran falling in the share of the father of the appellant became his exclusive property in his individual capacity and cannot be said to be coparcenary. There is no question of devolution of the property once partitioned and became exclusive individual property of the first respondent upon the appellant herein so as to recognise his right on the premise of attaining coparcenary rights with his birth. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7020 OF 2012
J. RAJESH (MINOR) THR.
HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN J. GOMATHI Vs M. KUMARAN. (DEAD) THR.
LRS. & ORS.
Author: SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
