As per amendment in the Hindu Succession Act female members are entitled to a share in co-parcenary property like make members.

The plaintiffs in the suit are the revision petitioners. The revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned trial Judge in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs in I.A.No.1005 of 2006 under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.

.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.98 of 2005 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode for declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.311 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Erode is void and not binding the share of Chennimalai Gounder in the suit properties and for injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner either alienating or encumbering the suit properties and for preliminary decree for partition dividing the suit properties into six equal shares and to allot one such share to each of the plaintiffs.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties are agricultural properties and A-schedule properties are the joint family properties of late V.Chennimalai Gounder allotted to him under partition deed dated 17. 1960 executed between himself and other co-sharers. B-schedule property is a house property inherited by Chennimalai Gounder as his ancestral property. The joint Hindu family included Chennimalai Gounder apart from the first defendant Chellamuthu. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. Both the plaintiffs are the daughters of Chennimalai Gounder. After the death of plaintiffs mother Pongiammal on 14. 1998, Chennimalai Gounder was living with the second plaintiff and the plaintiffs were looking after him. Chennimalai Gounder is stated to have died due to cardio-respiratory arrest on 26. 2004 at Universal Hospital, Erode. Therefore after his death, the plaintiffs as well as the first defendant have inherited his properties as legal heirs and each of the plaintiffs is entitled to 1/6th share and the first defendant is entitled to 2/3rd share. It is, with that pleadings, the suit was filed.

.4. The second defendant has filed a written statement. While admitting the relationship between the parties, the second defendant denies that A-schedule properties are joint family properties. According to him, the properties were purchased out of the common joint family fund for valuable consideration of Rs.25,000/-through a registered sale deed dated 7. 1973 in the name of first defendant. It is also denied that the plaintiffs are having any share in the properties. The C-schedule property is stated to be a self-acquired property of the first defendant. According to him, Chennimalai Gounder and the first defendant constituted a joint Hindu family. According to the second defendant, the first defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.311 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Erode against the second defendant and his younger sister and Chennimalai Gounder for declaration in respect of C-schedule property and for partition in respect of A and B schedule properties and a preliminary decree was passed declaring that C-schedule property was the absolute property of the first defendant and for partition in respect of other suit properties. In the said suit, there was a compromise and a family arrangement was entered between the second defendant, the first defendant, Krishnaveni @ Sudha viz., the plaintiff and the defendants in O.S.No.311 of 1998 and as per the said compromise, Krishnaveni @ Sudha received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the second defendant and allotted her share to the second defendant. Likewise, Chennimalai Gounder received Rs.50,000/- from the first defendant and allotted his share to the first defendant. It is the further case of the second defendant that the first defendant has agreed to receive a sum of one lakh rupees and allot his share in favour of the second defendant and accordingly, on payment, the first defendant allotted his share to the second defendant. The memo of compromise was filed in the said suit and accordingly, a final decree was passed on