JUDGMENT :

Suit for partition filed by the sole appellant herein was dismissed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal, the present Appeal Suit is filed.

2. For clarity sake, parties are referred to their status and ranking found in the trial Court decree.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the plaint is that, Kandasamy Gounder (first defendant) had two wives. The plaintiff is the daughter of his senior wife Pongiammal. The first defendant got separated from his senior wife and married the mother of the second defendant in the year about 1968. The mother of the plaintiff died in the year 2001. The suit properties are the ancestral properties of the first defendant. Hence, as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, being the daughter of the first defendant, the plaintiff has sought for 1/3rd share in the suit property. In support of the said claim, the plaintiff has relied upon the joint sale of the ancestral property on 19.08.2002 by the family members, to show it has been jointly enjoyed by the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff had contended that the defendants among themselves excluding her had created a registered deed of partition on 21.01.2004 in respect of the ancestral property. The said partition is non-est in law and fraud played against the plaintiff. On the very same day, the first defendant had settled the properties in favour of the second defendant's minor sons. The partition deed and the subsequent settlement deed have no binding effect on the plaintiff. Hence, after making a demand for partition, the suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property came to be instituted.

4. The first defendant, who is the father of the plaintiff, in his written statement, had contended that, the plaintiff does not form part of the Hindu joint family. The suit properties are not Hindu joint family properties. The Hindu Succession (Amendment Act) 2005, will not apply to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff have no right to claim 1/3rd share in the suit property. The suit schedule properties were subjected to partition on 21.01.2004 and the partition deed was duly registered. As per the registered partition deed dated 21.01.2004, “A” schedule property measuring 03.22 acres in S.No.123/1 of Gajjainaickenpatti Village with half share in the well and five horse power electric motor and pumpset, allotted to the first defendant. The second defendant was allotted 2.25 acres of land with half share in the well and five horse power electric motor and pumpset. Thereafter, the first defendant had settled his portion of property in favour of the minor sons of the second defendant. The partition deed followed by the settlement deed are valid. The heritage got obstructed prior to amendment. The subsequent amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005 does not invalidate any registered document, which came into effect prior to 20.12.2004.

5. According to the first defendant, the plaintiff was born somewhere in 1942. She got married prior to 25.03.1989. When the father is alive, the plaintiff as a daughter have no right to succession during the lifetime of her father. She is not a co-parcener as defined under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005. It is true that the ancestral house built in the village natham was sold on 14.08.2002. The plaintiff was asked to sign in the sale deed at the request of the purchaser and she executed the deed not as a sharer of the property. Being a vexatious suit, it has to be dismissed with costs.

6. According to defendants 4 and 5, the minor sons of the second defendant became entitled to the properties measuring 3.22 acres in S.No.123/1 of Gajjalanaickenpatty Village with half share in the well and electric motor and pumpset by virtue of a registered settlement deed dated 21.01.2004. The father of the minors, who is the second defendant took permission of the District Court in G.O.P.No.39 of 2007 to sell the mino