The main legal point established is the determination of the nature of the suit properties as ancestral joint family properties, influencing the entitlement of the plaintiff as a legal heir.

The defendants 1 to 3 in the suit are the appellants. The plaintiff in the original suit is the respondent herein. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for partition of the suit properties claiming that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties and seeking partition of her share from the rest of the shares belonging to the appellants/defendants. The Trial Court, after trial decreed the suit and granted a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for in the plaint. Hence, the defendants have preferred the present appeal suit on various grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal.

2. The admitted facts leading to the filing of the present appeal can be summarized as follows:

i) The respondent/plaintiff is the mother of deceased Balasubramaniam. The first appellant (first defendant) and the appellants 2 and 3 (defendants 2 and 3) are respectively the widow, son and daughter of Balasubramaniam. The suit properties were the properties allotted to the said Balasubramaniam in a partition that took place under a registered deed dated 13.07.1969. The same was marked before the Trial Court as Ex.A.2. The respondent/plaintiff, deceased Balasubramaniam and the sisters of the deceased Balasubramaniam were the parties to the above said Partition. In the said Partition, the respondent/plaintiff was content with the allotment of a family fund kept in cash to the tune of Rs.5,000/-towards her share. Balasubramaniam and his two sisters were allotted shares in the immovable properties. Admittedly, the subject matter of the partition were the properties held by one Rengasamy Naicker, husband of the respondent/plaintiff. The properties held by Rangasamy Naicker consisted of properties allotted to him in a family partition and the properties purchased by him. The entire property left behind Rengasamy Naicker, were made the subject matter of the partition under the partition deed marked as Ex.A2 without making any distinction between the properties allotted to him in the family partition and the properties purchased by him. The suit properties came to be allotted to the share of Balasubramaniam, the son of Rengasamy Naicker.

ii) Claiming that the properties allotted to late Balasubramaniam under the said partition were his separate and absolute properties, the respondent herein/plaintiff, who is admittedly a class-I heir of Balasubramaniam, filed the suit claiming 1/4th share in the suit properties. According to the respondents/plaintiffs contention, Balasubramaniam having died intestate, his properties shall devolve upon the appellants and the respondent equally, as his legal heirs. Thus the claim that she was entitled to one-fourth share in the suit property was made by the respondent/plaintiff.

iii) The claim of the respondent/plaintiff was resisted by the appellants/defendants with the contention that the properties of Balasubramaniam were not his absolute properties and on the other hand, they were the joint family properties of Balasubramaniam and the appellants 2 and 3 herein/defendants 2 and 3. According to their contention, by virtue of an amendment introduced to the Hindu Succession Act by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990, the 3rd respondent also became a coparcener in respect of the ancestral properties of Balasubramaniam as she was not married on the date on which the Hindu Succession Act as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 was brought into force and that hence, the interest held by Balasubramaniam in the suit properties as a coparcener was only 1/3rd share and the other 2/3rd belonged to the appellants 2 and 3 as coparceners. It was their further contention that, on the death of Balasubramaniam, in normal course, his 1/3rd share would have been devolved upon his legal heirs, each one of the appellants and respondent becoming entitled to 1/4th out of his 1/3rd share. However, the defendants had also taken a plea that even in respect of that 1/3rd share of Balasubramaniam, the respondent/plaintiff was