R. Mahadevan, J.

1. The unsuccessful first and third defendants in the suit and the first appeal have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Principal District Judge, Erode in A.S No. 35 of 2005 dated 17.10.2005. The suit was filed by the son, against the first defendant father and third defendant sister claiming half share in the suit schedule properties numbering 8 items. The grandfather was shown as the second defendant and subsequent to his death, the paternal uncle was impleaded as the fourth defendant and after his death, his legal heirs have been impleaded as the fifth and sixth defendants. The purchasers of 7th item of the suit property have been impleaded as seventh and Eight defendants.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that the 1st to 3rd item in the suit property are ancestral property and item Nos. 4 to 8 are purchased out of the income from the ancestral property. As all the properties are joint family properties, the plaintiff has half share in the same. The further case of the plaintiff is that the settlement of 4th item of suit schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant is null and void and so is the alienation of the 7th item of the suit schedule property. Resisting the suit, the first defendant contended that items 4 to 8 are his self earned property and he has every right to settle the same in favour of the 3rd defendant. The first defendant also claimed that one property in Nanjaikilampadi Village was purchased by him in the name of plaintiff and the same has been suppressed and ought to be included in the suit for partition. He also raised a plea that the suit must be dismissed for partial partition and staged a counter claim. The third defendant also defending her right and the right of the first defendant made a counter claim to declare that the settlement in her favour as valid.

3. After hearing all the parties concerned, the Trial Court decreed the suit by passing a preliminary decree declaring the plaintiff's entitlement to half share in the suit schedule properties. The appellate court though agreed with just the one contention that the kartha, being the manager had a right to gift a small portion of the property to his daughter, factually found that the gift/settlement was not acted upon atleast till the filing of the suit and therefore, confirmed the entire decree. Aggrieved the present appeal has been filed.

4. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

"1. Whether the properties stand in the Junior minor male member of the Hindu Joint Family, can be considered as a separate property of him for the reason that his mother was shown as guardian to him in the sale deed and hence the properties stand in his name could be left out in the partition suit?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable for partial partition?

3. Whether the Karta of the joint family could possess his separate property purchased out of his separate income especially when the income derived from the ancestral properties were meagre?

4. Whether the property gifted to the daughter by the karta of the joint family and accepted by her can be included subjecting it to partition on the allegation that gift deed was not acted upon, at the instance of the other family members?

5. Whether the gift could be rejected after it becomes complete without praying for declaration of its validity?

Subsequently, the additional question of law that has been framed is as follows:

1. In view of the introduction of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, is not the daughter entitled to equal share along with his son and if so whether, the 2nd appellant/3rd defendant is entitled to l/5th share in the suit property?

5. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently contended that going by logic if all the properties are to be treated as the joint family property, the property purchased in the name of the plaintiff must also form part of the joint family nuc