JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under section 96 of CPC read with Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC against the decree and judgment dated 28.03.2011 in OS.No.22/2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur.)

S.S. Sundar, J.

(1) The plaintiff in the suit in OS.No.22/2008 on the file of the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court-III, Tiruvallur, is the appellant herein.

(2) Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

(3) The appellant filed the suit in OS.No.22/2008 for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in all the suit properties. The suit properties consists of 4 schedules, namely, A, B, C and D. The 1st defendant is the father of the appellant/plaintiff and 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant is the brother of plaintiff. Defendants 3 and 4 in the suit are the sons of 2nd defendant.

(4) It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit properties are the ancestral family properties of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in all the suit properties as per the Hindu Succession Act. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant/father executed a Deed of Settlement dated 27.06.2002 in respect of A, B and C schedule properties in favour of 2nd defendant and that, he executed further Deeds of Settlement dated 09.02.2002 in favour of defendants 2 to 4. It is contended by the plaintiff that the 1st defendant has no right to execute a Settlement Deed in respect of the entire suit schedule properties as the plaintiff is also entitled to equal share along with defendants 1 and 2. It is also stated that the Deeds of Settlement dated 26.07.2002 and 09.02.2002 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are neither valid nor binding on the plaintiff. It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is a coparcener in the joint family consisting of her father/1st defendant and his two children and that she is entitled to claim equal share in the family properties by birth as any other male member of the family by virtue of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005. In the plaint itself, it is admitted that the 1st defendant purchased some properties in Chennai out of income derived from the properties obtained by him in the koor chit [partition] dated 05.09.1955, i.e., A, B and C schedule properties. It is admitted that the 1st defendant sold a portion of property to a third party namely one Andal by virtue of sale Deed dated 25.03.1970.

(5) The suit was contested by the 2nd defendant by filing a written statement adopted by defendants 1, 3 and 4. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. However, defendants 1 to 4 disputed the plaintiff’s claim in respect of 1/3rd share in all the suit properties. It is also the case of the 2nd defendant that the 1st defendant got the suit -A-, -B- and -C- Schedule properties by virtue of a partition between himself and his father and his brother through a koor chit dated 05.09.1955. It is contended that the 1st defendant is the lawful owner of both ancestral properties and his own self acquired properties. It is stated that the 1st defendant had settled all the suit properties in favour of his son and grandsons namely defendants 3 and 4 by virtue of registered Settlement Deeds dated 26.07.2002 and 09.02.2002 which are registered as Doc.Nos.767/2002, 535/2002, 533/2002 and 534/2002. Stating that the defendants 2 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of all the suit properties settled in their favour, the suit was contested further on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit by paying the court fee under section 37[2] of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. It is also the case of the defendants that the plaintiff got married in the year 1979 and that her marriage was performed in a grand manner by giving her 300 sovereigns of gold and silver ornaments and a huge amount of cash at the time of marriage. Since the State