Sreedhana Property Not To Be Treated As Property Inherited By Woman But Only As Her Self-Acquired Property: Madras High Court

The Civil Revision Petition before the High Court was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, to call for the records relating to a civil suit and strike off the plaint.

The Single Bench of Justice P .B. Balaji stated, “...Kamalammal has purchased the suit property only out of Sreedhana, it becomes her absolute property and her intestate succession would be governed only by Section 15(1)(a) and would not revert back to her father's heirs. Moreover, Sreedhana property is not to be treated as the property inherited by Kamalammal, but only as per self acquired property, in terms of explanation to Section 14 of the Act.”

Senior Counsel ARL.Sundaresan represented the Petitioner while Advocate C.R.Prasanan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

In the year 1955, a suit property was purchased by one Kamalammal. The said Kamalammal died leaving behind her husband alone as her only surviving legal heir. Her husband executed his last Will and testament on the premise that as the only surviving legal heir of Kamalammal, he had inherited the entire property. The Will came into effect. A suit came to be filed by one Kanagasudha, seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/25 share in the suit property. The claim of the plaintiff in the said suit was that as Kamalammal died without any issues, the suit property would devolve only upon the legal heirs of Kamalammal's brothers, all of them not being alive and consequently, therefore upon their respective legal heirs.

The plaintiff in the present suit was arrayed as the sixteenth defendant. Pending the earlier suit, an application was filed by the eighteenth defendant in the said suit, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the property of Kamalammal would devolve only upon her husband and would not revert back to the heirs of the father of Kamalammal. Accepting the said plea, the plaint came to be rejected.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that the plaintiff (first respondent) herein was the sixteenth defendant in the earlier suit and therefore would be bound by the earlier judgment and decree, the suit having been rejected.

On the contrary, the respondent stated that after the plaint was rejected in the earlier suit, within a year, the present suit was filed for partition and therefore, when the earlier judgment and decree was not binding on the first respondent/plaintiff, the present suit disclosed a clear cause of action.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that there is no embargo for the plaintiff whose plaint has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to institute a fresh suit, even on the same cause of action. What all is required for the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit is that the defects that were pointed out in the application for rejecting the plaint, which was also accepted by the Court, are cured before a fresh suit is initiated. Here, it is not as if the defects for which the plaint was rejected in the earlier instance stood cured.

Noting that in the present suit, there was no prayer seeking to set aside the rejection of the plaint and thereby dismissal of the suit, the Bench said, “Even otherwise, interpreting the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, I do not find that the plaintiff in the present suit has any iota of interest to claim or right or share in the suit property.”

“As can be seen from the provisions of Section 14, moreso, the explanation, it is clear that the Sreedhana property is the absolute property of the female, that is Kamalammal, in the present case”, it further added.

The Bench was further of the view that when there is an attempt at virtually re-litigating an issue that has already become final, it amounts to abuse of process. “This Court can certainly exercise rights under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to nip the said futile exercise in the bud”, the order read.

As per the Bench, the suit was clearly not maintainable as the decree in the earlier suit had become final and the present suit did not even challenge the said decree. The Bench further noted that as Kamalammal had purchased the suit property only out of Sreedhana, her intestate succession was to be governed only by Section 15(1)(a) and would not have reverted back to her father's heirs.

Allowing the revision petition, the Bench held, “In the light of the above, the suit in O.S.No.36 of 2021 has no legs to stand and certainly I am well within the powers available under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the plaint, which is not only amounting to a disguised re-litigation, but also an exercise in futility, since the writing is on the wall for the plaintiff, who can never make a claim for partition, which is not available to the plaintiff, under law.”

Cause Title: C.Venkatesan v. R.Vasantha (Neutral Citation: CRP.No.2002 of 2021)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Counsel ARL.Sundaresan, Advocate Meenakshi Ganesan

Respondent: Advocate C.R.Prasanan

Click here to read/download Order