The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling (2025 INSC 1080), allowed the appeal of Malleeswari, daughter of the late Munusamy Naidu, affirming her right to a 1/3rd share in ancestral properties under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (HSA 2005) and the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989. Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Ahsanuddin Amanullah set aside the Madras High Court’s review order, restoring its earlier Civil Revision Petition (CRP) decision dated September 23, 2022, which had granted Malleeswari’s plea to amend a preliminary partition decree. The court emphasized the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, criticizing the High Court for exceeding it by reappreciating evidence as if in appellate proceedings.
Case Background
The dispute originated from O.S. No. 192 of 2000, filed by Subramani (Malleeswari’s brother, now deceased) against their father, Munusamy Naidu, seeking partition of ancestral properties into two equal shares. The suit, based on a 1991 partition deed between Naidu and his brother, did not implead Malleeswari. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed on February 25, 2003.
Post-decree, Naidu executed a sale deed on December 27, 2004, transferring items 4-7 to K. Suguna (Respondent No. 1) and a settlement deed for the remaining items to Malleeswari. Subramani’s widow, Aruna (Respondent No. 2), sought a final decree in 2005. Naidu died in 2011, bequeathing his share to Malleeswari via will, leading to her impleadment.
In 2018, Malleeswari filed I.A. No. 1199 to amend the preliminary decree, claiming equal coparcenary rights under HSA 2005. The Trial Court dismissed it, but the High Court in CRP allowed the amendment on September 23, 2022, entitling her to a 1/3rd share per Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1. Suguna and Aruna sought review, arguing the CRP unfairly restricted their defenses. The High Court allowed the review, remanding the case for fresh inquiry.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The judgment clarified the distinction between review and appellate powers:
- Review Limitations: Review is confined to discovering new evidence, correcting apparent errors on the record, or analogous sufficient reasons. It is not an appeal in disguise, nor permissible for rehearing or substituting views (citing precedents like Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170).
- Error Apparent: Must be patent and manifest, not requiring prolonged reasoning. The High Court’s review order exceeded jurisdiction by recording fresh findings and overturning CRP conclusions without identifying such errors.
- Daughter’s Rights: Affirmed Malleeswari’s entitlement as a coparcener, rejecting delays or laches arguments. Pendente lite transferees like Suguna are bound by the vendor’s (Naidu’s) share, subordinate to coparcenary rights.
The court set aside the review order, restored the CRP decision, and directed the Trial Court to dispose of pending applications within three months. No costs were imposed.
Implications
This ruling reinforces daughters’ equal inheritance rights post-HSA 2005, even in pre-amendment suits, and curbs misuse of review jurisdiction to delay justice. It highlights judicial caution against blending review with appellate functions, ensuring finality in decrees while protecting coparcenary claims. For pendente lite purchasers, defenses are limited to vendor-allotted shares, promoting equity in family partitions.
Case Details: Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another | 2025 INSC 1080
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 