JUDGMENT :

Abdul Quddhose, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, cum Fast Track Court-V, Thiruvallur in A.S. No. 48 of 2005 reversing the Judgment and decree dated 02.12.2004 passed by the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur in O.S. No. 383 of 1996.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this second appeal:

2. The Appellant is the fourth defendant in the suit O.S. No. 383 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking for partition of the suit schedule property into four equal shares and for allotment of one share to the plaintiff and put her in separate possession of the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property allotted to the share of the first defendant under partition. According to her, the plaintiff and the third defendant are the legal heirs of the first defendant. According to her, she was born on 23.03.1973 and was married on 11.03.1992. It is her case that she and the defendants 1 to 3 lived jointly and the plaintiff was paying the kist for the suit property. It is also her case that from 1989 onwards, she was given her share of income from the suit property. According to her, as she has gained her right of share in the suit property, the decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 21.04.1974 obtained by the fourth defendant in O.S. No. 22 of 1979 will not affect her right of share in the suit property as the suit property is a joint family property.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that before purchasing the property, the fourth defendant ought to have insisted for partition and only thereafter, should have purchased the shares of the vendors. According to the plaintiff, she has been demanding her share in the suit property from 1992 onwards from the third defendants. It is her case that the suit property is still under joint patta standing in the name of the defendants 1 to 3 and one vasanth. It is the case of the plaintiff that subsequent to the Tamil Nadu amendment of the Hindu Succession Act which came into force from 25.03.1989, as per Section 29-A unmarried female legal heirs in a joint family property are also treated as coparceners. According to the plaintiff, since she got married only on 11.03.1992, the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 applies to her and she is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property.

6. According to the plaintiff; she is neither a party to the agreement of sale dated 21.04.1974 entered into by the defendants 1 to 3 with the fourth defendant nor a party to the suit O.S. No. 22 of 1979 in which a judgment and decree for specific performance was passed in favour of the fourth defendant. According to her, only by way of abundant caution, the fourth defendant hap been made as a party to the suit O.S. No. 383 of 1996.

7. Before the Trial Court, the defendants 1 to 3 were set ex-parte and the fourth defendant alone entered appearance and filed his written statement. As seen from the written statement, it is the case of the fourth defendant that the plaintiffs age is more than 21 years and not 21 years as claimed in the plaint. It is his case that the defendants 1 to 3 had already lost their right in the suit property more than 12 years back prior to the suit and as such the plaintiff claim is unsustainable. According to the fourth defendant, the agreement of sale dated 21.04.1974 entered into by the defendants 1 to 3 with him for the purpose of discharging the ancestral debts of the joint family.

8. According to the fourth defendant, since the vendors to the agreement of sale dated 21.04.1974 fraudulently joined hands