The rights of a minor plaintiff to challenge a partition deed and claim her share in ancestral properties, as established by the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, and the Transfer of Property Act.

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

1. The plaintiff, who is a minor, represented by her mother in the suit in O.S.No.826 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur, is the sole appellant in this appeal.

2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the minor plaintiff, who was in the womb, is entitled to reopen the partition entered into between other coparcener, when she was in the womb, on the ground that the partition is unjustified, unequal, unfair and detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff.

3. Though the suit was filed with a lengthy plaint, having regard to the nature of dispute in this second appeal, the following facts are relevant:

3.1.The appellant filed the suit for a declaration that the partition deed dated 03.12.2004 executed by defendants 1 and 2 is void and not binding upon the plaintiff and consequently any documents or instruments or deed executed by defendants based on the partition deed are not binding upon the plaintiff's share. The plaintiff also prayed for granting a decree for partition dividing the suit properties into four equal shares and to allot one share to the plaintiff, and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit properties affecting the right of the plaintiff.

3.2. The suit properties are described as items 1 to 11. The plaintiff is the daughter of first defendant. First defendant is the son of the second defendant. Third defendant is the sister of second defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 in the suit are the purchasers of the property from the second defendant on 01.07.2005. The plaintiff's mother is a legally wedded wife of the first defendant and their marriage was solemnized on 03.03.2004. The plaintiff was born on 26.03.2005. However, there was a partition between the first defendant and the second defendant on 03.12.2004 under a registered partition deed vide document No.1294/2004 registered before the Sub-Registrar Office, Velliynai.

3.3. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant married her mother on 03.03.2004 and due to wedlock, she was born on 26.03.2005. It is stated that her father, the first defendant, has driven her mother from the matrimonial home on 01.11.2004, while she was carrying her and that there was some mediation, due to which, her mother was taken back by the first defendant. But, again, it was stated that she was sent out of the matrimonial house by demanding dowry. Though the plaint contains several allegations against the first defendant they are not relevant. It is stated that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the defendants and that though the plaintiff was a minor, is entitled to, share in all the suit properties. originally the suit was filed for partition impleading only defendants 1 and 2. Later, after the written statement was filed disclosing the partition deed dated 03.12.2004 and the alienation made in favour defendants 4 and 5, the plaint was amended. The third defendant is the sister of second defendant and a plea was raised in the written statement by stating that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, the plaintiff impleaded the defendants 3 to 5 and others. It is stated in the plaint that on the alleged date of partition, the plaintiff has a distinct and separate interest over the suit property and that in view of the strained relationship between the plaintiff's mother and defendants 1 and 2, the document of partition has been effected between defendants 1 and 2 with an intention to defeat and defraud the plaintiff's share. The document of partition was described as one void ab initio and not binding the plaintiff.

4. Separate written statement was filed by the first defendant alleging that the first defendant was allotted only the first item of the suit property and that the other items were allotted to the second defendant in the said partition deed. The first defendant also pleaded that the pro