This is a case of a family where the son claimed half share in the ancestral property being a coparcener from his father and marking that the share given to the sisters is invalid. Taking into consideration the amended law under Hindu Succession Act,1956 court held that the daughters too have equal share in the property same as the son has. In this case Udaya Kumar is the only son of his father K.M. Thangavel. Here the son filed a case against his father and three sisters claiming half share with his father in the property that was actually purchased by his paternal grandfather named Mari appa Asari. K. M. Thangavel was the only son of Mari appa Asari, who died intestate. The suit property being an ancestral property in the hands of the father, the son claim that he and his father were entitled to half share each as coparceners and that hence, he was entitled to claim partition of the suit property into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to him. Out of the properties inherited by the father, a small portion was settled on Mallika (sister of Udaya Kumar) by the father under a Deed of Settlement. Subsequently, before the filing of the suit, the father executed a Settlement Deed in favour of all the three daughters. According to the plaintiff, the said Settlement Deed was not valid and would not be binding the share of the Udaya Kumar, the sons. The father said that his son Udaya Kumar was entitled to 1/6th share alone which was also released by him after receiving a sum of Rs.2.00 Lakhs as consideration for such release at the time of his marriage 20 years prior to the filing of the suit.Even after such release, Udaya Kumar was permitted to reside in one portion in the upstairs for his life time and his possession of the same was purely permissive; that in the absence of love and affection on the part of the Udaya Kumar, the daughter showed affection towards their parents and the same made the him execute a registered Settlement Deed in their favour. Thus the suit property absolutely belongs to the daughters.Though the trial court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff, the daughters were entitled to equal shares in the 1/3rd portion of the suit property, it has not clarified as to how and on what basis, such a decision was made. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court the son Udaya Kumar filed an appeal in the District Court, where the court setting aside the finding of the trial court and declared that the son is entitled to half share in the suit property. There after the father and the daughters came forward with second appeal. Firstly the matter was referred for mediation in the hope that the matter would be settled but it was all futile. The matter again came back to the court and it was admitted that, Mari appa Asari died intestate on 27.02.1945. Asper the then prevailing Hindu Law regarding succession, in the presence of son, daughters were not the legal heirs. Only on the advent of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughters became class I heirs entitled to share the property of the father on equal footing with the son by virtue of the Rule of succession provided in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.On the death of Mari appa Asari, his son Thangavel inherited the entire property left by Mari appa Asari and the property that came into the hands of Thangavel as the legal heir of Mari appa Asari was an ancestral property in his hands, in which his son (Udaya Kumar) had got a right by birth. In the suit property left by Mari appa Asari, the Thangavel and his son Udaya Kumar became coparceners entitled to equal shares.
The court said that the language used in the amended Section 6 is to the effect that in a Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener, shall, by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and shall have the same rights in the coparcenary property, as she would have been a son and be subject to the same liability in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son. Hence it was held that the Udaya Kumar and his sisters both shall be the coparceners and all of them shall be entitled to equal shares in the suit property.