Once there was a split in the coparcenary, the coparcenary ceased to exist, and the properties became the separate properties of Muthukumarasamy Chettiar. Therefore, the plaintiffs, not being class-I legal heirs, were not entitled to claim any share in the 'A' schedule properties. However, they were entitled to a 1/4th share in the 'B' schedule properties.

1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, in A.S.No.64 of 2005, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, dated 22.03.2005 in O.S.No.211 of 2003, were confirmed.

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the defendants are the respondents. For convenience, the parties would be referred to as in their rank in O.S.No.211 of 2003.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for the following reliefs;

"(1) to declare that the decree passed in O.S.No.22 of 2003 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore, is not valid and binding upon the plaintiffs with respect of their 2/40th share;

(2) to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs'

2/40th share each in suit 'A' schedule properties and 1/4th share each in suit B schedule properties;

(3) an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed to divide the properties by metes and bounds in the final decree proceedings;

(4) direct enquiry into future and past accounts for income from the suit properties; and

(5) award costs of the suit".

4. The parties are related as under:-Muthukumarasamy

(died on 01.03.2002)

= Kamalam Ammal(wife – D10)

Son Son Son (..........Daughters................)

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9

| |

| |

| --------------------

| | |

| Son Son

| D-11 D-12

|

-------------------------------------------

| | |

Son Daughter Daughter

D-13 1st Plaintiff 2nd Plaintiff

It is the case of the plaintiffs that suit A and B schedule properties were the ancestral joint family properties of their grandfather Muthukumarasamy Chettiar and his children. In partition, suit 'A' schedule properties were allotted to their grandfather, (father of defendants 1 to 9) and B schedule properties were allotted to their father (1st defendant) under the registered partition deeds dated 05.07.1974 and 31.07.1983. The 1st plaintiff got married in 1996 and the 2nd plaintiff got married in 1999. Since the plaintiffs' marriage took place after the commencement of the Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, they are deemed to be coparceners in the family properties and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to each 1/40th share in 'A' schedule properties and 1/4th share in B schedule properties. After the demise of their grandfather, the 3rd defendant Vinayagam filed a suit for partition against defendants 1 and 2 and 4 to 11 to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the properties of his father, in O.S.No.22 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore and in which, the defendants colluded themselves and entered into a compromise and pursuant to which, a compromise decree was passed on 07.02.2003. In the said suit, the plaintiffs and their brother were not parties. On a perusal of the said compromise decree, the plaintiffs came to know that their father has not reserved himself any share in 'A' schedule properties, which is against law and justice. The plaintiffs, being coparceners, are entitled to their respective share and the father cannot relinquish or gift his share allotted to his branch, without concurrence of the plaintiffs and as such, the compromise decree is not binding on them. From the proceedings of the said suit, the plaintiffs further came to know that their grandfather executed a Will and the same was registered at Chennai in spite of the fact that the properties were situated in and around Cuddalore, which create grave suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. Further, the value of the properties in the compromise decree, was given a lesser value though they worth about crores of rupees. The plaintiffs, who are deemed to be coparceners as per the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, are entitled for a share in the properties of their grandfather. Their father has no right to relinquish his right in the 'A' schedule properties. Hence, they filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra.

5. The 1st defenda