Madras High Court· 31 July 2026
Whether a share in properties that stand in the name of others can be claimed without pleading the joint family nucleus?
Mrs.L.Raniammal (died) v. K.C.Saradambal (died)
2026:MHC:3180 · A.S.No.920 of 2012
Coram: Justice N.Sathish Kumar · Justice M.Jothiraman
Answer
No. The plaint must disclose when and how the joint family was constituted and how the properties have been dealt with. Where, except stating that the properties belonged to the father, no other pleadings whatsoever were made, no share can be claimed: here the plaintiff's earlier plaint clearly shows that there was no ancestral nucleus of any kind and that her father alone was the only earning member, and once the sons were allotted properties under the partition deed and the purchase stood in their name, it has to be held that they are the properties of the brothers.
Headnote
Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 — s.61 — Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 — Rule 214 — Partition — Joint family property — Joint family nucleus — Pleadings — Company property — Transfer of permit —
Partition — Joint family property — Pleadings as to the joint family nucleus —
Held: The plaint must contain pleadings as to when and how the joint family was constituted and as to the joint family nucleus. In the absence of such pleadings, no share can be claimed in properties that stand in the name of others. (¶14, ¶16)
Partition — Purchase in the name of the sons — Benefit of the sons alone —
Held further: Where sons were allotted properties under an earlier partition deed, a purchase in their name is not joint family property merely because the father stood as guardian for the minors. Such purchase is only for the benefit of the sons alone. (¶15)
Partition — Company property — Shareholder cannot claim the property of the company —
Held further: A legal heir who has claimed the shares left by her father before the Company Law Board cannot also lay her claim over the property of the company. She has to work out that remedy before the appellate forum alone. (¶17)
Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 — s.61 — Transfer of permit — No objection certificate of legal heirs —
Held further: Where the permit of a deceased holder was transferred to one legal heir on the no objection certificate of the others, the transfer cannot be treated as one for the benefit of the joint family. Appeal dismissed. (¶20, ¶21, ¶22)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 14The main issue is with regard to item nos.146, 148 and 149 being the company properties and item no.150 which was purchased under Ex.A.6 by K.C.Ramachandran, the elder son of Chinnaiya Naidu and other sons who are minors. A careful perusal of plaint pleadings would show that absolutely there is no pleadings as to when and how the joint family was constituted and how the properties have been dealt with. The plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit was aged about 60 years. Except stating that the properties belonged to Chinnaiya Naidu, the plaint does not disclose as to how item nos.146, 148 and 149 came into existence and how item no.150 was purchased. A careful perusal of Ex.A.5 partition deed would indicate that the properties have been partitioned among the father and sons and some of the properties have been allotted to all the sons. On a careful perusal of Ex.A.6, it is seen that the first son was aged about 30 years of age and other sons were minors represented by the father and the property was purchased in the name of sons. It was purchased in the year 1969. This aspect was never pleaded in the plaint, whereas it is pleaded as if the properties are joint family properties, only in the evidence.
Paragraph 16Further, there was no reason as to why the plaintiff has not prosecuted the suit in O.S.No.307 of 1984 but after 20 years, the present suit came to be filed. Therefore, the conduct of the parties cannot be ignored altogether. Once the properties stand in the name of the sons and that too purchased after the partition in the family and they were also allotted certain properties, merely because the father stood as guardian for some of the minors, now it is too late for the plaintiff to contend that these properties which stood in the name of the brothers, are also joint family properties. Absolutely, there is no pleadings whatsoever in the plaint to show that the suit properties are joint family properties. Except contenting that the suit properties belonged to the father, no other pleadings whatsoever was made. Further, a perusal of Ex.A.13 plaint clearly indicates that there was no joint family nucleus to purchase the property. Such being the position, it has to be held that it is the properties of brothers and the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the property in item no.150.
Acts & Sections
s.61 Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939Rule 214 Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Mrs.L.Raniammal (died) v. K.C.Saradambal (died) — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →