Unmarried daughters are entitled to equal shares in coparcenary property under Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, granted by birth and not just from the date of insertion of the amendment.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the appellants in the Second Appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition, claiming 7/10th share to the property. The plaintiffs' case is that one Nanjunda Gounder was the owner of the property who died intestate on 7.11.1953, his wife the second defendant also subsequently died. The first defendant is his only son and the plaintiffs are daughters. Among the plaintiffs, the third and fourth plaintiffs are unmarried while the second defendant mother died on 8.8.1983. The Trial Court while holding that the property is an ancestral property, has granted 4/10th share to the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court has confirmed the said decree and judgment. Against the concurrent findings by both the Courts, the plaintiffs have filed the present Appeal. While admitting the Second Appeal, this Court has raised the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 7/10th share as claimed by them by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, brought into force in 1989".

2. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that while it is held that the suit property is ancestral property, by virtue of the amendment brought by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 to Hindu Succession Act with effect from 25.3.1989, by which the Section 29-A was inserted to the Hindu Succession Act, an unmarried daughter of the Hindu Coparcener is recorded as coparcener by birth. In the present case, since the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are unmarried, they are entitled for 1/4 share each. Apart from the first defendant being the son entitled for another 1/4 share and the second defendant deceased mother entitled for 1/4 share. Subsequent to the death of the mother, namely, the second defendant, by sharing her 1/4th share equally by the plaintiffs and the first defendant, the first defendant's share will be 3/10th while the first and second plaintiffs' share will be 1/20 each and the third and fourth plaintiffs' 3/10 each and totally put together the plaintiff’s are entitled for 7/10 shares. The Courts below ignored the provisions of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act by which the unmarried daughter is recorded as coparcener by birth has granted 1/2 share to the first defendant and another 1/2 share to the second defendant mother, while not giving any share to the plaintiffs, being the daughters. It was after death of the mother share was devolved on the plaintiffs and the first defendant and on basis all the plaintiffs were given jointly 4/10 shares while the first defendant was given 6/10 share.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, under Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, the devaluation of shares should be equal to that of the son along with the unmarried daughters.

4. To show that the unmarried daughter does not become the coparcenar after the insertion of Section 29-A of the Act but from the date of her birth, the learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in Alamelu Ammal and Others v. Tamizh Chelvi and others, 2004 (3) MLJ 620. While dealing with the rights of the unmarried daughter under Section 29-A holding that the right carries from the date of birth of the unmarried daughter and not from the date insertion under Section 29-A of the Act, this Court has given the following verdict:

"Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act was inserted by the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 with effect from 25.3.1989. It grants equal rights to an unmarried daughter in coparcenary property treating her as a coparcener in her own right as a son. Clause (ii) of Section 29-A provides that at the time of partition of a Hindu joint family the coparcenary property shall be divided so as to allot to the daughter the, same share as is allotable to a son. There are two provisos to Clause (ii) with which we are not concerned. Clause (iii) of Section 29-A provides, that the property to whic