The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 do not have retrospective application, and therefore, the daughters were not entitled to claim partition of their father's property who died before the Act came into force.

1. Second Appeal No.296/2011 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.191 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court No.II, Chennai reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1948 of 1988 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The 3rd defendant is the appellant, 6th defendant is the first respondent, respondents 2 to 7 were the plaintiffs 2 to 7, respondents 8 to 10 were the defendants 2, 4 and 5 and the respondents 11 to 15 are the legal representatives of the deceased 5th respondent, who died pending second appeal.

2. Second Appeal No.554/2011 arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.191 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Court cum Fast Track Court No.II, Chennai reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.1948 of 1988 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiffs 3 to 7 are the appellants, the 3rd appellant died pending appeal and his legal representatives were made on record as respondents 7 to 11. The 6th defendant is the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent was the 2nd plaintiff and the respondents 3 to 6 are the other defendants in the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1948 of 1988 for partition and injunction.

4. The trial court passed a preliminary decree for partition and on appeal filed by the 6th defendant, the lower appellate court dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs 3 to 7 and the 3rd defendant have filed the above second appeals.

5. Since the issues involved in both the second appeals are common, both the second appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

6. The brief case of the plaintiffs are as follows:-

(i) The plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of one Murugan @ Murugesan who died intestate on 29.7.1946 and all the legal heirs are enjoying the property jointly as tenancy in common and having constructive possession. The said Murugesan had left the suit properties. The plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to succeed and inherit the intestate properties of late Murugan @ Murugesan. 5th defendant is a third party and colluding with the other defendants and trying to purchase the suit properties without the consent and authority of the plaintiffs, to deprive their legitimate shares. The said Murugesan had two wives viz., Govindammal and Alamelu. The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs are the daughters of Murugan and the 3rd plaintiff is the son of the 1st plaintiff as well as the grandson of Murugan.

(ii) The 1st defendant had taken active part in disposing of the properties to his advantage without considering the plaintiffs' right and claim. The 1st defendant negotiated with the 5th defendant to alienate the properties and share the sale proceeds among the other defendants. The plaintiffs sent notice to the defendants and also lodged an objection with the Sub Registrar. Ignoring the notice and objection, the defendants are preparing to alienate the properties. If the properties are sold, the plaintiffs will be deprived of their legitimate rights in the suit property.

(iii) The suit properties are to be partitioned among all the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit and the 6th defendant was impleaded as his legal representative. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming 1/6th share each of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction.

7. The brief case of the 1st defendant is as follows:-

(i) According to the 1st defendant, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sisters and the 3rd plaintiff is the son of the 1st defendant. The suit property is not he joint family property, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim right in the suit properties. The suit properties are self acquired properties of Murugan, who died in the year 1946. After the death of said Murugan, the 1st defendant was enjoying the property. The d