Here's a breakdown of a recent court decision from the Madras High Court about a family property dispute. Let's dive into the details.
The case involves Veliammal and others (people who appealed) against Chinnakulandai and others (people responding to the appeal). It was overseen by Justice A.D. Maria Clete on December 4, 2025.
The disagreement is about family property that originally belonged to Arya Gounder. Veliammal, the person who started the case, claimed a share of the property, arguing that it was never officially divided among family members.
The judges in Gingee, at both the lower and district level, decided that the property was family-owned. They ruled that Veliammal deserved a 1/12th share because her father died in 1991, before a 2005 change in the Hindu Succession Act.
"The property is family-owned; the supposed verbal agreement to divide it, claimed by the other side, hasn't been proven."
Veliammal and others appealed, challenging the earlier decisions. They argued about a supposed verbal agreement to divide the property and claimed issues with being forced out and time limits. However, the courts found no proof for these claims.
The court mentioned an important Supreme Court decision (Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma) that daughters have a right to family property from birth, no matter when their father died. However, this couldn't be used in this appeal because it was filed by the people responding to the appeal, not Veliammal.
"This Court cannot change the appeal made by the other side into a helpful appeal for someone who didn't appeal."
The appeal was rejected because there was no important legal question to answer. The court stressed that the appeal was trying to re-examine evidence, which isn't allowed in these cases.
The Madras High Court decided to reject the appeal, confirming that Veliammal is entitled to a 1/12th share of the family property, as previously ruled by lower courts. The parties can consider other legal options if needed, but for now, the decision remains.
