The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Central Act 39/2005, which entitles daughters to equal shares in ancestral properties. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of this legal provision and its application to the suit properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:First Appeal has been filed under section 96 of CPC, against the Judgement and Decree dated 31.07.2015 made in O.S.No.138 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhachalam.)

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam in O.S.No.138 of 2011.

2. The appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.138 of 2011 and brother of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in the above suit who are the respondents 1 and 2 herein.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked before the trial Court as plaintiff and defendant.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.138 of 2011 instituted the above suit for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 are the sons and daughter of one Kothandapani who acquired the suit properties by inheritance from his adopted father Sowrirajulu Chettiar and therefore the properties are his ancestral properties. Apart from the plaintiff and the defendant, the said Kothandapani had three other daughters namely Brindha, Parimala and Devagi. After the amendment of Central Act 39/2005 the daughters of Kothandapani are also entitled for equal shares in the suit properties. While so, the father Kothandapani died intestate on 03.10.2011 leaving behind his sons and daughters as his legal heirs. On 24.08.2011 the daughters of Kothandapani namely Brindha, Parimala and Devagi executed a release deed in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of their shares in the suit properties. However, such reliefs made in favour of one co-parcener is presumed to be released in respect of all co-parceners, since the suit properties are undivided joint family properties. While so, the 1st defendant is attempting to alienate the suit properties, as if he is entitled to 5/7 shares in the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/3 shares in the suit properties.

4. The 1st defendant contested the suit, filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. According to the 1st defendant, the suit for partition is not maintainable in law and on facts. The plaintiff has suppressed the earlier partition deed executed on 05.03.1960 in respect of the suit properties and about the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.72 of 69, a partition suit in respect of the properties alienated by the father of the parties. Hence, a second suit for partition is not maintainable. He would further submit that, after the said partition, the sisters of the 1st defendant had relinquished their rights in the suit properties in favour of the 1st defendant and therefore, such relinquishment cannot be presumed to be made in respect of all other co-parceners. Moreover, in order to avoid huge registration charges for registering the release deed executed by his sisters, the 1st defendant agreed to mention the properties as ancestral properties in the said release deed. The plaintiff taking advantage of the same filed the above vexatious suit for partition. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had also purchased properties in his name and the name of his wife and children utilizing funds from the suit properties. Hence, the 1st defendant prays for dismissal of the suit for compensated cost.

5. The 2nd defendant, in her written statement would submit that she is the daughter of the said Kothandapani who inherited the suit properties from his adopted father. Since she has not relinquished her rights in the suit properties, she is equally entitled to 1/3rd shares in the suit property and also paid the necessary court fees in respect of her shares.

6. The trial Court, on basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

1.Whether the suit pro