The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, specifically Section 6, do not apply retrospectively to successions that had opened before the amendment came into force.

P.K. Misra, J.

The facts in brief are as follows :-

1. 1 In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioners in this Review Application, it would be appropriate to trace the relationship and genealogy, which is apparent from the pleadings and the evidence of the parties.

1. 2 Appadurai and Doraisamy were two brothers. Doraisamy expired on 210. 1965 leaving behind his widow Karpagambal. They had no issues. Sundarajan, the father of the present disputants, was the son of Appadurai through his first wife. Appadurai had also begotten another son Ranganathan and a daugter Radhabai through his second wife Sundarambal. Sundarajan had expired on 8. 1975, leaving behind six daughters, who are the plaintiffs in the suit for partition (Petitioners in the Review Application) and two sons, who were Defendants 1 and 2 as well as his widow, the original Defendant No.3. Such Defendant No.3, however, had expired during the pendency of the suit. Initially the plaintiffs claimed 1/9th share each, but subsequently, on the death of their mother, they amended the plaint and claimed 1/8th share each.

1. 3 The case of the plaintiffs / petitioners as projected in the plaint was to the effect that there was a land belonging to a landlord, whereon Appadurai and Doraisamy, the joint lessees, had constructed a superstructure. Subsequently, by virtue of the decree passed under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, Sundarajan, the father of the present litigants, had purchased the lands from his own income. The property, now in dispute, had been allotted to Sundarajan in a partition and, therefore, on his death, the parties are entitled to succeed equally to such separate property of Sundarajan.

1. 4 Defendant No.1 filed a written statement, which was adopted by Defendant No.2. The allegation that the father of the parties had purchased the suit property out of his own earnings was denied. It was claimed that on a leasehold land, superstructure had been put up by Doraisamy and his brother Appadurai, who were members of the joint family. After the death of Doraisamy, his half share in the property devolved on his widow Smt.Karpagambal. The widow of Doraisamy settled her half share in the property in favour of Sundarajan by a deed of settlement dated 10. 1966. Thus, Sundarajan became entitled to 5/8th share and the second son and the daughter of Appadurai were entitled to 3/8th share in the said property. Subsequently, Sundarajan had purchased the leasehold land under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act by a registered sale deed, dated 9. 1972. It is stated that Defendant No.1 had provided money for the purchase of the said land.

1. 5 Learned single Judge found that the superstructure on the leasehold land belonged to the joint family consisting of two brothers, Doraisamy and Appadurai and after the death of Doraisamy, his widow had executed a settlement deed, dated 10. 1966, in respect of her half share in the building in favour of Sundarajan. There was a partition under Ex.A-4 dated 2. 1967, wherein it was admitted that the superstructure belonged to the joint family consisting of two brothers. Under the partition deed dated 2. 1967, Sundarajan was allotted the disputed suit building towards his share, whereas other properties were allotted to the share of others. Learned single Judge further held that on the death of Sundarajan on 8. 1975, his 1/3rd interest in such joint family property devolved upon his legal heirs, namely, the widow, the daughters and the sons. It was further held that since the widow of Sundarajan, the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2, died during the pendency of the suit, her share devolved upon the plaintiffs and the surviving defendants and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to each 1/8th of the 1/3rd i.e., 1/24 and the defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to the balance 18/24. so far as the land on which the superstructure stood is concerned. The learned single Judge fur