JUDGMENT :

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2009 passed in O.S.No.75 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

2. The first appellant in this appeal preferred the above referred suit as against the respondent and against the second appellant, seeking the relief of preliminary decree for partition, allowing her 1/3 rd share, in order to pass final decree with metes and bounds.

3. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, by judgment and decree dated 22.10.2009, decreed the suit, as the plaintiff and the second defendant are each entitled to 1/3 rd share in 'A' and 'B' schedule property. Excluding 5th and 6th item of 'A' schedule property and 10th item of 'B' schedule property and each an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the Fixed Deposit, which is in the name of Annadurai. In the appeal, the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, reversed the findings arrived at by the trial Court and ultimately, the suit was dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the said findings, the plaintiff and the second defendant, are before this Court with the present Second Appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties, are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

5. The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff and the second defendant are sisters. First defendant, is their father. Krishna Gounder, Govinda Gounder and Kuppan, are the brothers of the first defendant. One Raja Gounder was their father. On 20.08.1987, the first defendant and his other 3 brothers had partitioned the property by a registered Partition Deed. In the said partition, the plaint 'A' schedule property was allotted to the first defendant.

(ii) Those properties are the Joint Hindu family properties and so, the same was enjoyed by the first defendant along with his two daughters, as a Joint Hindu family property. 'B' schedule property was purchased by the first defendant from the nucleus of the 'A' schedule property. After selling the Sl.Nos.5 and 6 of the 'A' schedule property, the first defendant had purchased Sl.Nos.8 to 10 of the 'B' schedule property. The first defendant never enjoyed those properties in a separate manner and so, the suit schedule property, is not his separate property.

(iii) The plaintiff got married on 06.07.1992. Similarly, the second defendant got married on 20.08.2000. When at the time, the Hindu Succession Act was amended in the year of 1989, both the plaintiff and the second defendant was unmarried and hence, they are entitled to 1/3 rd share in the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule property. Now, the first defendant is trying to alienate the property. When the plaintiff asked for her share, the first defendant refused for amicable partition. So, the plaintiff caused lawyer notice to the first defendant on 30.04.2007 but the first defendant refused to receive the said notice.

(iv) The name of the first defendant's wife is Jakkubaiammal. She is the mother of the plaintiff and the second defendant. When the first wife was alive, the first defendant got married to the second wife, namely, Devaki. Hence, the marriage solemnised between the first defendant and Devaki become void and thereby, the son born to them, is not entitled to any share from the suit schedule property. Hence, the present suit has been filed for the relief of partition.

6. The case of the first defendant, as averred in the written statement, is as follows:

(i) The suit schedule properties and other properties were all purchased by utilising the funds realised from the hard work done by the first defendant and his brothers. After entering into the partition, the suit schedule property becomes absolute property of the first defendant.

(ii) The first defendant of his shear hard work had earned the money and