The amended Hindu Succession Act guarantees equal inheritance rights to daughters, regardless of their marital status or sequence of birth, affirming their coparcenary status in ancestral properties.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

Prayer: This second appeal is filed under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2014 made in A.S. No. 24 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, in modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2012 made in O.S. No. 116 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry.

1. The second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2014 made in AS No. 24 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge. Pondicherry, modifying the decree passed in O.S. No. 116 of 2006 dated 29.06.2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry.

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant herein is that, her father Venugopal was a resident of Pondicherry and he married one Bhavani, and due to the wedlock between Venugopal and Bhavani, three children were born. The plaintiff is the daughter and the defendants are the sons of the said Venugopal and Bhavani. According to the plaintiff, the father Venugopal owned suit item Nos. 1 to 4 and the mother Bhavani owned the suit item No. 5. While so, on 23.07.1998 Venugopal died intestate. The mother Bhavani also died intestate on 24.10.2002. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendants as legal heirs succeeded to their estates. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff the defendants failed to come forward for an amicable partition. Hence, the plaintiff caused legal notices to the defendants calling upon them to effect partition of the properties left by their parents. Even though, the aforesaid notices were received by the defendants they have not chosen to allot the share of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

3. Resisting the case of the plaintiff, the defendants filed written statement. The defendants admits that the plaintiff and the defendants were born to the said Venugopal Padayatchi and Bhavani. The said Venugopal Padayatchi and Bhavani died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as their legal heirs. Further, it is submitted that item Nos. 1 & 2 of the suit properties were purchased by their father Venugopal under two sale deeds dated 03.10.1981 and 29.08.1981 respectively, while item Nos. 3 &4 devolved upon their father Venugopal Padayatchi by virtue of a partition deed dated 26.12.1982 executed between himself and his brother, Krishnamurthy Padayatchi. The defendants further submitted that the parents of the plaintiff and defendants are native of Tamil Nadu and around 1975 they migrated to Pondicherry. Hence, the Pondicherry Customary Law is not applicable to them and they are bound by the law prevailing in Tamil Nadu. Their further submission is that, since the plaintiff was married on 03.05.1987, she is not entitled for any share in the family estate. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants are native of Pondicherry?

2. Whether the plaintiff and defendants are governed by the Customary Hind