The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Hindu Succession Act and the rights of daughters as coparceners, as interpreted in the decision of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 24.12.2003 passed in A.S. No.72 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore, upholding the decree and judgment dated 31.03.2003 passed in O.S. No.75 of 1999, on the file of the Sub Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.)

1. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.75 of 1999, on the file of the Sub Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District. She filed the suit for partition of the suit properties into six equal shares and to allot one such share to her and also for costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is as follows:

The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 are sons and daughters of Kolandhai Gounder and the fifth defendant Radhammal is their mother. Kolandhai Gounder died leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. The suit properties are self acquired properties of Kolandhai Gounder. Item Nos.11 to 17 in ''A'' schedule properties were purchased in the name of the fifth defendant. The suit properties were enjoyed by Kolandhai Gounder as his own properties and the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, on 21.01.1991 the defendants 1 to 5 trespassed into Item No.1 of the suit property in which the plaintiff is residing, and asked her to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice on 04.02.1991 (Ex.A1) to the defendants for partition of the suit properties. Since there was no response from them, the plaintiff had filed the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following grounds :

i. Item No.3 of ''B'' schedule property was leased out by the mother of the plaintiff (5th defendant) and income thereon was used for her personal expenses.

ii. The plaintiff''s husband was constructing a house and therefore, the plaintiff was accommodated in Item No.1 of ''B'' schedule property. The plaintiff thereafter left Item No.1 of the suit property.

iii. Kolandhai Gounder (plaintiff''s father) during his life time executed a Will dated 15.01.1972 (Ex.B28) bequeathing the suit properties in favour of their sons.

iv. Item Nos.2, 3, 10 ,17, 19, 27, 28, 29, 37 & 39 are ancestral properties of late Kolandhai Gounder and the defendants 1 to 3 and the same were partitioned amongst them through a koor chit dated 12.02.1969 (Ex.B1). The remaining extent of the land are not self acquired properties of Kolandhai Gounder since they were purchased from out of the joint family nucleus. Therefore, according to the defendants the plaintiff cannot claim any share in the suit properties.

5. After full contest, the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, decreed the suit vide his decree and judgment dated 31.03.2003 as under :

i. Item No.14 to 16, 18, 22 to 24 are the self acquired properties of the fifth defendant.

ii. The other properties are the joint family properties of Kolandhai Gounder and defendants 1 to 3 and as per Hindu Succession Act the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/24th share alone in the suit properties except the properties owned by the fifth defendant.

iii. The plaintiff can take separate proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 CPC in respect of future mesne profits.

6. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment dated 31.03.2003 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.72 of 2003 before the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore District and the plaintiff filed cross objection.

7. The first appellate Court after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides upheld the findings of the trial Court vide his decree and judgment dated 24.