IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of a daughter to be treated as a coparcener in ancestral properties, as clarified in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, and the daughter's right to claim partition despite her knowledge of a Settlement Deed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2015 made in A.S.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.6 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Vridhachalam.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.08.2015 made in A.S.No.24 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2014 passed in O.S.No.6 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Vridhachalam.

2. The 1st and 2nd defendants, in a suit for partition, are the appellants herein, having suffered concurrently before the Courts below.

3. The parties are described as per their litigating status before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiff is the sister of the defendants. The suit properties, according to the plaintiff, belonged to the father Ganapathy Padayatchi, who died intestate and being a daughter, the plaintiff claimed 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The plaintiff also stated that the 1st defendant, without having any separate right in the suit properties, in order to defeat the plaintiff's right and colluding with the 2nd defendant, executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the 3rd defendant, his son. The plaintiff caused a lawyer's notice on 14.10.2009, to which, the 1st defendant sent a reply on 02.12.2009, stating that the plaintiff's share has stood ousted and she was not entitled to any claim for partition. Therefore, the plaintiff constrained to institute the suit.

5. The 1st defendant filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff was married even in the year 1967, well before the Tamil Nadu Act I of 1990 came into force and therefore, she was not entitled to any share in the joint family properties. The 1st defendant also stated that by the plaintiff's own contention the plaintiff's right was ousted and the defendants have acquired title.

6. The 1st defendant also filed an additional written statement where it was contended that the properties are ancestral properties of the father and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any right, especially, after the Settlement Deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant, his son, on 25.06.2007.

7. The Trial Court decreed the suit and granted a preliminary decree from 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 preferred a First Appeal and the First Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal, as against which, the present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendants 1 and 2.

8. The above Second Appeal was admitted on 19.03.2018 on the three following substantial questions of law:

a. Whether in law that the Courts are right in failing to see that the first appellant had excluded the first respondent from the suit properties and that she had been ousted of her rights in the properties?

b. Whether in law that the Courts are right in failing to see that neither the Hindu Succession Act as amended by the Tamil Nadu Act I of 1990 nor the amendment to the Central Act would entitle an equal 1/3rd share to the first respondent?

c. Whether in law that the Courts are right in overlooking that if at all the first respondent would get only a 1/6th share, (1/3rd share of her father's ½ share)?

9. I have heard Mr.T.Sezhian, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.R.Muralidharan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

10. Mr.T.Sezhian, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Court below have concurrently erred in granting a decree as prayed for when admittedly the plaintiff was married prior to the coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Act I of 1990. Further, according to him, the father died even in the year 1990, the plaintiff never sought to make a claim until the 1st defendant executed a Settlement D