The court affirmed that once property becomes absolute through sale, conditions in a Will do not apply, and female heirs are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants are the 1^st and 3^rd defendants before the Trial Court. The first respondent is the plaintiff, and the other respondents are the remaining defendants before the Trial Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

3. The fundamental facts, which are require for the effective disposal of the instant appeal is as follows:-

According to the plaintiff, the suit “A” schedule property originally belongs to the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and the defendants qua Chinnaiah Goundar. During his lifetime, he executed a Will dated 16.02.1960 giving life interest to his wife “Thanji Ammal” and vested remainders to the male descendants of his two sons. His sons are Muruga Goundar and Lakshmana Gounder and also he has 5 daughters. The present suit is among the legal heirs of one son Muruga Goundar. The “B” Schedule property is the self acquired property of Muruga Goundar. The “C” Schedule property stands in the name of the 3^rd defendant, which according to the plaintiff was purchased through the income derived from the Schedule “A” property. While so, Muruga Goundar died on 22.08.1996. After his demise, his wife Muthammal also died on 25.02.2006. As such, his property devolved upon his legal heirs. It is the further submission of the plaintiff that in spite of the request, the defendants did not come forward to divide the property. Hence, filed the suit for partition to divide A Schedule property into 5 equal shares and seeking for an allotment of one such share, similarly, in “B” and “C” Schedule property, praying to divide the suit property into 7 equal shares and for an allotment of one such share to the plaintiff.

4. The said suit was resisted by the 1^st defendant by contending that already a partition was effected between the plaintiff and the defendants, and that in the said partition, each of them was allotted 0.38 ½ cents, and 0.07 cents. After the allotment, the parties have also put up construction thereon. The above statement was reiterated by the defendants 7 and 8 too. Accordingly, the defendants 1, 7 and 8 prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. The 3^rd defendant, though adopted the statement of the 1^st defendant, had stated that “C” schedule property is his absolute property purchased through his income. Hence, he also prayed to dismiss the suit.

6. The 5^th defendant accepted the plaint claim in respect of “B” schedule property and sought for an allotment of 2/7 shares to her and 6^th defendant viz., her sister.

7. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and relied 15 documents to support her case. On behalf of the defendants, defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 were examined as DW1, DW2, DW5 and DW4 respectively. Apart from that, one Mr.Ramesh Kumar was also examined as DW3. Also, they relied upon 30 documents, and as a Court document, summon dated 04.09.2018 was marked as Ex.C1.

8. The Trial Court, after having considered the submissions made by either side, has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 4/8 share in the suit properties?

2. Whether the suit properties are liable for partition?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant from encumbering and alienating the suit properties?

4. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

(Extracted as it is)

9. While answering the above issues, the Trial Court found that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5 share in the A schedule property, and 1/7 share in the “B” schedule property. As far as “C” schedule property is concerned, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved with the said order, the defendants 1 and 3 preferred the instant First Appeal.

10. Heard Ms.R.T.Sundari, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants 1 and 3 and Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that B schedule property also has to be dealt in ac