Daughters' rights as equal to sons under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.06.2015 made in O.S.No.79 of 2013, on the file of the learned I-Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri District.

A. The Appeal :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District Judge, Dharmapuri, dated 30.06.2015 in O.S.No.79 of 2013, whereby the suit filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs for partition and for a declaration that the Partition Deed, dated 22.01.1999 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants herein/defendants encumbering the suit property, was decreed.

B. The case of the Plaintiff :

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of one V.R.Mani. The third defendant is the Banker of the second defendant. The said V.R.Mani is the son of Ramasamy Gounder. They were the native of Vellakalpatti Village of Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District. The said V.R.Mani got married to the first plaintiff in the year 1969 and about the year 1970, the second plaintiff was born and in the year 1973, the third plaintiff was born.

2.1. While so, in the year 1975, the said Ramasamy Gounder sold all his ancestral property in Vellakalpatti Village and purchased lands and shifted to Indamangalam Village. The fourth plaintiff was thereafter born to the said V.R.Mani and the first defendant at Indamangalam village. In the year 1981, out of income from the joint family properties, agricultural lands ad-measuring Ac.3.79-1/2 Cents was purchased in the name of the said V.R.Mani.

2.2. While so, the said V.R.Mani, started treating the first plaintiff cruelly as she gave birth to three daughters and the said V.R.Mani was insistent upon male descendant and he also treated his daughters/the second, third and fourth plaintiffs badly. The said V.R.Mani proceeded to defy his own father Ramasamy Gounder and illegally married the first defendant. Through the first defendant, the second defendant was born. Unable to bear the extreme conduct of his son, the Ramasamy Gounder went to his daughter’s house and lived with his daughter in his last days and died. The said V.R.Mani continued to ill-treat the first plaintiff, his wife and the plaintiffs 2 to 4 daughters and he finally died on 02.09.2005. After the death of the said V.R.Mani, in the year 2013, the plaintiffs approached the defendants 1 and 2 for amicable partition of the properties. Even though the second defendant was initially willing to partition the property, thereafter, listening to the ill advice, he refused and evaded. When the plaintiffs, further approached the defendants, they stated that on 22.01.1999 itself, the said V.R.Mani, partitioned the suit properties with the second defendant and where under the suit properties are allotted to the share of the second defendant and therefore, the properties are not available. The said V.R.Mani also sold about 62 cents. The plaintiffs were shocked to know about all this, therefore, they issued a legal notice on 14.04.2013 and thereafter, the suit was filed.

3. The second defendant filed a written statement, whereby it was stated that the first plaintiff was a divorced wife. It is further contended that the plaintiffs 2 to 3 are not the daughters of V.R.Mani. It was denied that the ancestral property was sold and the family migrated from Vellakalpatti to Indamangalam Village. The said V.R.Mani, purchased 3 Acre 791/2 Cents land out of his own funds. Some of the properties were purchased in the name of Ramasami Gounder by the said V.R.Mani. There is a registered partition on 22.01.1999 between the said V.R.Mani and the second defendant and the suit properties allotted to the share of the second defendant.

C. Issues :

4. On the strength of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 19/25 shares in the suit properties