A daughter's entitlement to inherit a share as a co-parcener in ancestral property is upheld, emphasizing the need to distinguish between ancestral and self-acquired properties.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 made in A.S.No.62 of 2009 on the file of the Sub- Court, Ranipet reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 made in O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Arcot.

2. Heard Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The fourth defendant has purchased the suit property from the first defendant. The plaintiff who is the daughter of the first defendant and the sister of the defendants 2 and 3 has filed a suit for partition and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. On the First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court allowed the First Appeal and reversed the judgment and decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree by allotting 1/4 share to the plaintiff. Aggrieved over that, the first and fourth defendants have preferred this Second Appeal. The first defendant died during the pendency of this Appeal and his legal heirs are already on record as the plaintiff and the defendants 2 and 3.

4. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant and sister of the defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 had joint family properties at Manguppam Village along with the suit property. In a family arrangement, the suit properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and she was in enjoyment of the same. Due to the difference of opinion between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the first defendant was trying to grab the suit property allotted to the plaintiff with the help of the fourth defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has caused a legal notice to the defendants 1 to 4. On receipt of the same, they have sent a reply notice containing false allegations. Hence, the plaintiff had demanded division of the suit property into four shares and allot one share to her. But the first defendant had refused to divide and tried to create sham and nominal documents in favour of the fourth defendant and it will not bind the interest of the plaintiff. As the defendants 1 to 3 are not amenable to partition in a proper manner, the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition of 1/4 share.

5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows:

The written statement of the first defendant has been adopted by the fourth defendant. D2 and D3 remained exparte. The relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant is true. It is false to state that the plaintiff and the first defendant were jointly in enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has got no individual or joint right over the suit property. The plaintiff has got married in the year 1979 and she cannot claim any partition stating that she has right in the ancestral properties. The first defendant had never promised to give any share to the plaintiff in the suit property and hence, the plaintiff did not have any share. The first defendant has got every right to deal with the property and he has validly alienated the suit property to discharge family debts by executing a sale deed in favour of the bonafide purchaser and hence, the purchaser has got the title transferred in his favour.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues for consideration:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/