The court established the principle that under the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1/1990, a daughter is entitled to her share in ancestral property, and any disposition or alienation without her consent is invalid.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rule 1 r/w 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.2015 made in O.S.No.264 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Salem.)

1. This Appeal Suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.2015 made in O.S.No.264 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Salem, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for partition of her 1/3rd share in the suit property.

2. The contesting appellant was impleaded in the appeal suit vide order dated 30.11.2021in C.M.P.No.16421 of 2017 in A.S.No.1002 of 2015 and will be referred to as the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff in the suit will be referred as the 1st respondent in this appeal.

INTRODUCTION/PLEADINGS IN BRIEF:

3. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent on the premise that the suit properties are the ancestral properties and as such she was entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties along with the 2nd and 3rd respondents who are her father and brothers respectively. According to the 1st respondent she was married in the year 1996 and as such she was entitled to the benefit of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 (1 of 1990). The 1st respondent was given to understand that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 alienated the properties in favour of the 1st appellant and such alienation was invalid in so far as her 1/3rd share in the suit properties is concerned. The 1st respondent's further case was that in spite of repeated reminders and demands for partition of her 1/3rd share in the suit properties, the respondents 1 and 2 refused and so she was constrained to file the suit. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte and the 1st appellant alone filed the written statement denying the 1st respondent's claim for partition of her 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

4. According to the 1st appellant the suit properties absolutely belonged to the 1st appellant and all the revenue records also stood in his name. The 2nd respondent as the absolute owner executed a registered Settlement Deed on 29.08.1994 vide Document No.2449/1994 before the Sub Registrar, Omalur in favour of the 3rd respondent and also put the 3rd respondent in possession of the suit properties in pursuance of the Settlement Deed. The 3rd respondent thereafter vide registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2008 in Document No.5479/2008 before the Sub Registrar, Omalur alienated the suit properties to the 1st appellant herein and ever since the 1st appellant was in enjoyment of the suit properties as absolute owner.

5. It was the further case of the 1st appellant that in the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2009 filed by the sister of the 2nd respondent for declaration of the Settlement Deed and the Sale Deed as null and void, the Trial Court after full trial had dismissed the suit on 26.11.2010. Therefore according to the 1st appellant the Settlement Deed as well as the Sale Deed were tested before the Court and found to be valid and as such the present suit is not maintainable.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any share in the suit properties?

2. Whether the defendants are restrained by permanent injunction from alienating or encumbering the suit properties?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mense profit?

4. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

The said issues were recasted as follows:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any share in the suit properties?

2. Whether the settlement deed dated 29.08.1994 and the sale deed dated 02.07.2008 are to be declared as null and void?

3. Whether the defendants are restrained by permanent injunction from alienating or encumbering the suit properties?

4. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

7. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. On the side of the defendants, 3rd defen