Case: Ramachandra Pillai Vs. Arunschalathammal and Others

1. One Arumugam had three sons,Thanu, Shanmugam and Sankaran, and a daughter Ramlakshmi. Shanmugam died in 1942 and his estate devolved upon his daughter Chidambarathammal. By virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, she acquired, when that Act was brought into force an absolute interest in the interest in the estate inherited by her from Shanmugam. Chidambarathammal died in February, 1957, when she was a minor and unmarried. Arunachalathammal, one of the daughters of Ramlakshmi Ammal, sister of Shanmugam, commenced an action in the Court of the District Munsiff for partition and Separate possession of her 1/24th share out of the estate of Chadambarathammal. The claim was resisted by the sons of Thanu ands of Shanmugam. The Trial Court decreed the claim and that decree was confirmed in second appeal to the High Court of Madras.

Court's reasoning:
5. Mr. Chagla raised an alternative contention that the estate in the possession of the deceased must be deemed to have the same character as it had when Shanmugam died and thereafter the provisions of Section 6 of the Act applied in determining the rights of the claimants thereto.There is no substance in this contention. Section 16, Rule 3 on which reliance is placed by counsel merely designates the heirs, it has no relevance in determining the nature of the property. There is nothing in Rule 3 to support the contention that the estate of a person dying intestate is to be restored to the character which it had when it devolved upon the propositus : the rule specifies a method of determining the preferential heirs, and for that purpose creates a fiction. The heir of the father, mother or the husband, of the propositus who would have taken the estate if he had immediately died after death of the propositus is the heir to the propositus. It is common ground that the estate upon Chidambarathammal on the death of Shanmugam was property which he received on partition, and Section 6 of the Act has no application to property received by a member of a joint family on partition. Again Section 6 in terms applies by to those cases where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Act having at the time of his death an interest in a Mirtakshara coparcenary property. In our view the contention that the property must be deemed to be restored to the character of interest in coparcenary property and devolves under Section 6 is without substance.