IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment clarified that under the Hindu Succession Act, daughters are entitled to coparcenary rights, and properties can shift from separate to joint family status upon the birth of a son, impacting inheritance rights significantly.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

PRAYER:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against common judgment dated 09.04.2008, rendered in O.S.No.60 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.

PRAYER:- Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against common judgment dated 09.04.2008, rendered in O.S.No.31 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.

These Appeal Suits are directed against the common judgment passed in O.S.No.60 of 2006 and O.S.No.31 of 2007, dated 09.04.2008, on the file of the Additional District and Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram.

2. The suit in O.S.No.60 of 2006 is for partition. The suit in O.S.No.31 of 2007 is for permanent injunction.

3. The facts not in dispute are:

(i) One S.K.Lakshmi Narayanan had two wives and through his first wife Padmavathy, he had three sons – the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 and a daughter – third defendant. After the death of the first wife Padmavathy, he married the fourth defendant – Anusuya @ Lakshmi Ammal and through her, he had a son - 8th defendant and four daughters – defendants 5 to 7 and 9.

(ii) Items 1 to 20 of the suit properties along with many other properties were the ancestral and joint family properties of the said 4/44 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.(MD)Nos.258 and 259 of 2008 S.K.Lakshmi Narayanan and that the said Lakshmi Narayanan has entered into a partition deed on 14.11.1969 along with his sons born through his first wife and whereunder “A” schedule properties therein (the present suit items 1 to 20) were allotted to the share of S.K.Lakshmi Narayanan, “B” schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and “C” and “D” schedule properties were allotted to the shares of the defendants 1 and 2 respectively.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that before the second marriage of S.K.Lakshmi Narayanan, when the said Lakshmi Narayanan wanted to marry second time, the elders of the family advised him that he should make some permanent arrangements for his children born through his first wife and on that basis, the partition deed dated 14.11.1969 came to be executed, that they have also entered into an arrangement at the time of Ex.A.1-partition to the effect that the properties so allotted to Lakshmi Narayana were to be enjoyed by him for his life time and after his death, the said properties to be divided among the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2, that the said Lakshmi Narayanan has purchased items 21 to 24 of the suit properties, out of the income derived from the suit items 1 to 20, that the said Lakshmi Narayanan died on 03.01.2006 and after his demise, as per the arrangements arrived at between the parties, the plaintiff and his brothers – defendants 1 and 2 derived rights over the suit properties and that since the defendants 1 and 2 were not amenable for partition, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for partition and allotment of 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

5. The plaintiff has also taken a stand that his father S.K.Lakshmi Narayanan was of unsound mind and not keeping his good health two years prior to his death and apprehending that some documents were proposed to be taken from his father, he was forced to send a legal notice by setting out the illness of his father and that even after the death of his father, the defendants have been creating documents in the name of the 8th defendant.

6. The seventh defendant had remained exparte.

7. The defence of the other defendants is that during the life time of their father S.K.Lakshmi Narayanan, he executed a settlement deed dated 27.08.2003 settling item No.6 of the suit properties to all his daughters – defendants 3, 5 to 7 and 9, that subsequently he executed another settlement deed dated 27.01.2004 settling items 1 to 5, 7 and 21 to 23 upon the 8th defendant and also executed a Will on 27.01.2004 itself b