While deciding application for amendment merits of proposed amendment should not be considered.

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nammakkal, filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking permission to amend the Plaint, this revision is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) According to the revision petitioners, they are sisters and the respondent is their brother. They are the children of one Palaniappa Gounder. The suit properties are the ancestral properties of their father, acquired under registered Partition Deed dated 20.6.1967, entered into with his father and brothers. The said Palaniappa Gounder died on 112. 2004. The mother of the petitioners pre-deceased their father Palaniappa Gounder. The petitioners are entitled to a share in the suit properties, which a re ancestral in character. The respondent is also entitled to a share. since the respondent was not amenable for an amicable partition and was claiming exclusive right on the basis of an alleged settlement in his favour, the petitioners filed the Suit for partition in O.S. No.33 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Namakkal on 2. 2005 claiming 1/6th share each.

(ii) According to the revision petitioners as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 39 of 2005, which came into force from 9. 2005, the petitioners are entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit properties. Since the Suit was filed on 2. 2005 itself, the petitioners were entitled to claim only 1/6th share each on that date. Now as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by Act 39 of 2005, with effect from 9. 2005 the petitioners are each entitled to claim 1/3rd share over the suit properties. Therefore, the petitioners filed Application in I.A. No.1710 of 2005 seeking amendment of plaint to the effect that they are each entitled to claim 1/3rd share.

(iii) However, by the impugned order dated 1. 2007, the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal dismissed the Application for amendment. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

.3. Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the scope of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by Central Act 39 of 2005 which came into effect from 9. 2005 since as per the said provision of law, the petitioners would be entitled to a greater share than what was claimed atthe time of filing of the plaint on 2. 2005 i.e ., prior to amendment and that is the reason why the petitioners sought for the proposed amendment. Further, according to the learned counsel, the proposed amendment would not alter the nature and character of the Suit. He also contended that while deciding the amendment Application, the trial Court should not consider the merits of the proposed amendment as it is the well settled law that Courts should not record findings on the merits of the amendments which course has to be exercised only during the trial of the Suit. Learned counsel also cited the decision of the Apex Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakkannu and another, 2002 (4) CTC 189, and also Full Bench decision of this Court in Hi Sheet Industries v. Litelon Ltd., Hosur, 2007 (1) MLJ 320, in support of his contention that even after commencement of trial, amendments could be made to the plaint taking notice of the subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation and also for the porposition of law that Courts should not record the finding on the merits of the amendment as it should be done only during the trial of the Suit.

.4. Admittedly, by enactment of Tamil Nadu Act 1/90, the State Government inserted Section 29-A giving equal rights to daughters in coparcenary property. Thereafter in 2005, the Central Government has also enacted similar amendment by amendment Act 39/2005 which came into force on and from 9. 2005. It is also the well settled law that if there is a inconsistency between the State enacted Law and Parliament ena