Right enures to female heir when suit for partition is filed by male heir.

Siva Subramaniam, J.

1. The plaintiff, who was partly successful in O.S. No. 76 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udamalpet, is the appellant in this appeal. The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit.

2. The material allegations in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, is the only son of his father Kuppuswamy Gounder and his mother the first respondent herein. Defendants 2 to 5, who are respondents 2 to 5 herein, ard his sisters. The appellant and his father Kuppuswamy Gounder were members of a joint family for which his father was the joint family manager. His father died on 6-7-1977 leaving behind the appellant and the respondents as his legal representatives. There was no partition during his lifetime. The properties described in the second schedule of the plaint belonged to the joint family consisting of the appellant and his father Kuppusamy Gounder. Respondents 2 to 5 got married and they have settled in different places. After the death of Kuppusamy Gounder, the respondents also became entitled to a share in the plaint schedule properties as per law. The debts payable by the family to the tune of Rs. 24,000 are described in the third schedule of the plaint. The appellant is entitled to 7/12th share in the suit properties and each of the respondents is entitled to 1/12th share in the same. After the death of the appellant's father, the appellant and the respondents were enjoying the suit properties as co-owners. But, however, later on misunderstandings arose between them. The second respondent issued a notice on 6-10-77 to the appellant and other respondents calling upon them to effect a partition for which the appellant caused a suitable reply notice on 27-10-77 expressing his willingness for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds. Now respondents 1 to 5 are colluding together and they have prevented the appellant from cultivating the suit properties, and from realising any income. The house described as item B in the second schedule of the plaint is a dwelling house, and the respondents have no share in the said house. In these circumstances, the present suit for partition was filed.

3. The second respondent herein, who was the second defendant in the suit, filed a written statement which was adopted by the other respondents raising the following contentions. The properties mentioned in the plaint belonged to one Ponnusamy who is the grandfather of the appellant and' respondents 2 to 5. Upto the date of the death of the appellant's father Kuppuswamy Gounder, the properties were in the management of the appellant's father. After his death, respondents 2 to 5 demanded partition which was not conceded by the appellant and he did not even allow them to enjoy the lands. The debts mentioned in the plaint are not true. The appellant did not care to pay the Co-operative Bank mortgage loan and hence the husband of the second respondent had paid the same. The dwelling house mentioned in the plaint does not belong to the appellant exclusively. It is also available for partition and the respondents are having equal rights in the same.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant took up a stand that the house property is not divisible and the respondents are not entitled to a share in the dwelling house in view of the bar created under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, he amended the plaint as per the order in I.A. No. 880 of 1978 praying for partition and separate possession of his 7/12th share with reference to the agricultural lands described in the plaint as item A in the second schedule. However, during the course of the hearing of this appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant found it necessary to seek an alternative prayer in respect of the said house property as otherwise the appellant could not get appropriate relief from this Court. Therefore, he filed a petition in C.M.P. No. 8275 of 1987 to amend the plaint by including the