The appellants herein were the defendants in O.S. No. 148 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. O.S. No. 148 of 2004 had been filed by the first respondent herein R.Lakshmi, seeking partition and separate possession of 6/15th share in the suit schedule 'A' 'B' 'C' properties.

2. The suit had been filed against twenty two defendants. The plaintiff was the daughter of Thiruvenkata Udayar. Thiruvenkata Udayar died in the year 1979. The mother of the plaintiff Thiamuthu died in the year 1986. Thiruvenkata Udayar and Thiamuthu had one son and four daughters. The son Ramasamy died in the year 1988. The first defendant R.Nallammal is the wife of Ramasamy and the second and third defendants are her daughters. The fourth, fifth and sixth defendants are also the daughters of Thiruvenkata Udayar and Thiamuthu. They are sisters of the plaintiff. The other defendants-7 to 18 are purchasers of various portions of the suit properties. Among them, the tenth defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives had been impleaded as defendants-19 to 22.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule 'A' 'B' 'C' properties were the joint family properties of Thiruvenkata Udayar. The plaintiff was married in the year 1992. 'A' schedule property was purchased on 10.08.1959. 'B' schedule property was settled in the name of Thiruvenkata Udayar by his father on 06.04.1957. From the joint family income, 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were purchased. 'C' schedule property was purchased in the name of son of Thiruvenkata Udayar by name Ramasamy Udayar and other relation Ramalingam Udayar on 29.11.1980.

4. In the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that all the properties are joint family properties. Consequently, as a daughter, she claimed she was entitled to her share in the joint family properties in view of the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act introduced by the Tamil Nadu Government in 1989. Since she was married in the year 1992, after the introduction of the amendment, she claimed 6/15th share in each one of the three suit properties. She also stated that she had earlier filed a suit in O.S No.320 of 1995 which was dismissed for default. Application in I.A. No.526 of 2003 filed to restore the suit was also dismissed. However, claiming that since the suit was dismissed without any adjudication on the issues and hence it would not act as resjudicata, the present suit had been filed, seeking partition and separate possession of 6/15th undivided share in the 'A' 'B' 'C' schedule properties.

5. Among the purchaser/defendants, the twelfth defendant P. Nallammal alone filed a written statement. She claimed to have purchased a portion of the 'B' schedule property for adequate consideration on 02.12.2002. She claimed to be in possession of the said property. She sought dismissal of the suit.

6. The first defendant filed a written statement challenging the claim for partition. She was the widow of Ramasamy, the son of the family. She denied that 'A' schedule property was a joint family property of the Thiruvenkata Udayar. She also stated that the plaintiff has to prove that 'B' schedule property was settled to Thiruvenkata Udayar. She further denied that 'C' schedule property was purchased from the joint family income. She further stated that since Thiruvenkata Udayar died in the year 1979, the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefit under the amendment introduced in 1989 to the Hindu Succession Act. She further stated that her husband Ramasamy was the absolute owner of the properties on the death of Thiruvenkata Udayar and consequently stated that she had a right to deal with the properties. She stated that the suit should be dismissed.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai framed the following issues for consideration ;

1. Whether the