N. KIRUBAKARAN, J.

1. The appeal suit has been filed against the Preliminary Decree and Judgment passed in the partition suit filed by respondents 1 to 5 against the mother of the plaintiffs and 5th defendant, who is a subsequent purchaser.

2. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs before the trial Court is that the properties belong to Mr.Govindasamy Kounder and Ms.Thayakannammal and Mr. Purushothama Kounder, who is the son of the aforesaid two persons. Mr. Govindasamy Kounder purchased the residential house in his name. Ms. Thayakannammal purchased the residential properties in her name, which is shown as item No.1 in the suit schedule. Item No.2 in the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of Mr.Govindasamy Kounder and item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule property were purchased in the name of Purushothama Kounder. After the death of Mr. Govindasamy Kounder, Mr. Purushothaman Kounder along with his sons, who are D2, D3 and D4 executed the sale deeds in respect of item Nos.2 to 4 in favour of the appellant/5th defendant. Thereafter, the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act came into force. Relying that the right accrue to the plaintiffs, the daughter of Mr.Purushothama Kounder and children of pre-deceased daughter filed Suit for partition against Ms.Lakshmi Ammal/mother and their brothers/defendants 2 to 4 and subsequent purchasers/5th defendant/appellant and Joint Registrar-1, Cuddalore. In the said Suit preliminary decree was passed. That has been challenged by the subsequent purchaser/5th defendant, before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. N. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K. Kumaresh Babu, learned counsel, for Mr. V. Balamurugane, learned counsel for R1 to R5.

4. The relationship is admitted. The only question to be seen is whether the sale deed dated 02.06.1994 executed in favour of the appellant by the father and brothers of 1st and 2nd respondents/ sisters is valid or whether by virtue of becoming coparcenar, they are entitled to set aside the same even after getting a decree of partition. The trial Court, considering the fact, disbelieved the version put forth by the subsequent purchaser, stating that the will was executed in favour of the sons viz., respondents 7 to 9 by the grandfather viz., Mr.Govindasamy Kounder. However, it is a fact that the property was sold by Mr.Purushothama Kounder and three sons viz., respondents 7 to 9 on 02.06.1994 itself, whereas the partition suit was filed after 18 years, only after the amendment of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, by which the daughters are also brought on par with the sons as a coparcenar. No doubt, the daughters have been made coparcenars by virtue of the amendment. However, there is an exception in proviso to Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is usefully extracted as follows:

''6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.-

(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,-

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this subsection shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.

(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section - (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, as property c