The judgment establishes the principle that the coparcenary rights of daughters in ancestral property are determined by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act No.1 of 1990 and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It emphasizes that the rights of coparceners and the effect of partition deeds executed before the amendment are crucial in determining entitlement to ancestral property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 09.03.2012 made in O.S.No.323 of 2008.)

1. The Appellants, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.323 of 2008, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree, dated 09.03.2012, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the original suit.

3. The brief facts, as averred by the plaintiffs in the original suit, are as follows:

One Krishnasamy Gounder, father of the 1st Defendant owned an extent of 5.40 acres in Neelambur Village, comprised in various survey numbers. Krishnasamy Gounder had two wives, viz., Subbathal and Chinnammal. Through his first wife Subbathal, Krishnasamy Gounder had a son by name Subbanna Gounder (first respondent/first defendant) and a daughter by name Rajathal, who is no more. Through his second wife Chinnammal, Krishnasamy Gounder had a son by name Palanisamy and two daughters by name Subbathal and Chinnakkanna. Legal heirs of Krishnasamy Gounder through his two wives, partitioned the properties on 22.12.1986 by a Partition Deed registered as document No.2120 of 1986 with SRO, Sulur. The properties were divided into three schedules, viz., 'A' schedule was allotted to Tmt.Chinnammal, 'B' schedule was allotted to Subbanna Gounder (first respondent/first defendant) and 'C' schedule was allotted to Palanisamy. 'B' schedule properties, to an extent of 2.69½ acres allotted to Subbanna Gounder (first respondent/first defendant), are the suit properties herein. Ever since the date of partition, the suit properties are jointly enjoyed by Subbanna Gounder (first respondent/first defendant) and his family. Subsequently, through a registered partition deed dated 08.06.2004, registered as Document No.2524 of 2004 with SRO, Sulur, respondents/defendants partitioned the suit properties into four shares. Even though the defendants 3 and 4 are entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit properties ie., 67.37 cents each, they were clandestinely allotted only 20 cents each. Believing the words of defendants 1, 2 and 5 that the suit property was being divided into four equal shares, respondents 3 and 4/defendants 3 and 4 have signed the document. The division of property is improper and illegal. Moreover, the interest of the minor plaintiffs have also been ignored and neglected. Since the suit property being ancestral property and the plaintiffs are grandchildren of Subbanna Gounder, they are totally entitled to 8/48 share. The partition deed 08.06.2004 is invalid, unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs, as it was not executed in accordance with law. Therefore, they filed the suit for (i) declaration that the partition deed 08.06.2004 is null and void; (2) partition of the plaintiffs 8/48 share and also (3) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit properties to third parties.

4. The case of the respondents 1, 2 and 5/defendants 1, 2 and 5, as stated in the written statement, is as follows:-

The partition deed executed between the defendants 1 to 5 is valid and enforceable in law. The partition was effected only after full negotiations and taking into account the relative possession of the parties. “Sreethanam” was done to the defendants 3 and 4 by the defendants 1 and 2. The parties to the documents did not challenge or question the said partition. The partition deed was executed voluntarily by the parties to the document. No representation of any kind was made by any of the parties to the document to either parties to the document inducing them to sign in the partition deed dated 08.06.2004. After the execution of partition deed, it was pressed into service of the parties to the partition deed succeeded to their respective shares and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. If at