Female heir can demand partition in respect of her share.

The defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants.

.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the daughter and sons of Kumarasami Gounder to whom the suit property belonged. Kumarasami Gounder who was enjoying the properties as head of the joint family died intestate on 26. 1967. Even after celebrating the marriage of the plaintiff, Kumarasami Gounder was detaining the plaintiff, her husband and their children with him. His wife predeceased Kumarasami Gounder. The first defendant was away from the village on account of his employment. But yet, the plaintiff and the second defendant who were residing in the family house, used to give a share of the yield due to the first defendant and he was also enjoying the same. The second defendant had helped the plaintiff in taking 6 acres of land in Pandali village of Kollegal taluk on lease. The second defendant was giving share from the yield of the family property to the plaintiff till 1986 Vaikasi. The plaintiff came to know that defendants 1 and 2 have divided the properties among them by means of a partition deed dated 23. 1981. When the plaintiff attempted to take registration copy of the said document, she came to know that the first defendant had sold a portion of the property in favour of the third defendant. When the plaintiff demanded partition in the village panchayat, the defendants refused. The defendants did not effect partition inspite of the notice issued by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to l/9th share as per the Hindu Succession Act. Hence the suit.

.3. The first defendant in his written statement contends briefly as follows: The father of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2, Kumarasami Gounder while in a sound and disposing state of mind had executed a will in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in the presence of Oor Gounder, one Ramadoss Gounder and others even on 23. 1965. The recitals in the document allotting 1/3rd share to Kumarasami Gounder is valid. After the death of Kumarasami Gounder on 26. 1967, the defendants 1 and 2 acquired a right in the 1/3rd share of Kumarasami and are enjoying the same as per the terms of the Will. The first defendant had also discharged the loans of his father to the tune of more than Rs.45,000. The allegation that the plaintiff was residing with her father till his death is not true. The plaintiff quarrelled with her father and her brothers three years after the marriage and they were not even visiting each other thereafter. The plaintiff did not even attend the funeral of her father. The claim that the plaintiff was enjoying the suit property along with the second defendant and was giving 1/3rd share to the plaintiff is not true. The defendants 1 and 2 have effected a partition in respect of the properties belonging to them to the knowledge of the plaintiff’s husband even in 1981. In the said registered document, the plaintiff’s husband has signed as an attestor. The first defendant had sold a portion of the property allotted to him only in favour of the third defendant. The claim of the plaintiff that she demanded partition in the presence of villagers is not true. The third defendant had taken possession of the property on the date of the sale in his favour. The plaintiff had lost her interest if any even on 23. 1965 the date of the execution of the Will by their father The suit is therefore liable tp be dismissed.

4. The third defendant in his written statement has contended briefly as follows: The third defendant has purchased a portion of the property allotted in favour of the first defendant after due enquiry for a valid consideration of Rupees one lakh. An agreement of sale had already been effected between the third defendant and the first defendant on 12. 1986 itself. The plaintiff and her husband are aware of the same. The partition deed dated 23. 1981 was effected to the knowledge of the plaintiff and her husband. It was signed by the plaintiff’s husband also.