K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant herein. The plaintiff, who is the defendant's niece born to his elder sister, is the respondent in the Second Appeal and cross-objector in C.O.No.33 of 2010. The plaintiff, claiming through her mother, sought for partition of the properties acquired from the great-grandfather of the defendant, more specifically one-half share. The Courts below, by concurring judgments, partitioned the properties and out of the 9 equal shares, the plaintiff's entitlement to 3/9 shares was declared and the remaining 6/9 share was set apart for the defendant.

2. When the Second Appeal was admitted, a learned Single Judge of this Court framed the following questions of law:

"i. When the plaintiff's mother Jayasree was admittedly not a party to Ext.A1 document dt.22.1.1956, was the lower appellate court justified in applying sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in view of the fact that the said Act came into force only on 17.6.1956?

ii. Were the courts below justified in treating the plaint schedule property as the self-acquired property of Nayadi Vaidyar, the great grandfather of the plaintiff when, in the hands