Unmarried daughters are recognized as coparceners in ancestral properties under the amended Hindu Succession Act, leading to equal rights in joint family assets.

JUDGMENT :

R.N.Manjula, J.

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2013 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2012 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Vellore at Tiruppattur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2011 made in O.S.No.2 of 2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur.

2. Heard Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the suit as plaintiffs and defendants.

4. The 2^nd defendant is the appellant. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition of their ½ share in the suit properties. The trial Court had allowed the suit and passed a preliminary decree for partition of ½ share and on the first appeal preferred by the 2^nd defendant, the first appellate Court dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved over that, now, the 2^nd defendant has preferred this second appeal.

5. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiffs in their plaint are as under :

5.1. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sisters and unmarried daughters of the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd defendant is the son of the 1^st defendant. The plaintiffs and the defendants are members of the joint family.

5.2. The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to the plaintiffs' great grandfather Periya Vellai Gounder and he died intestate. After the demise of Periya Vellai Gounder, his two sons viz., Raman/2^nd defendant and Govindan had partitioned the family properties orally and in the oral partition, an extent of 18 acres and 40 cents in S.No.113 was allotted to the share of the 2^nd defendant, who is the father of the 1^st defendant and grandfather of the plaintiffs.

5.3. Ramasamy, Tirupati, Govindasamy and 1^st defendant are the sons of one Raman. Pursuant to the oral parition that occurred amongst the 1^st defendant and his brothers, an extent of 3 acres in S.No.113 was allotted to the share of the joint family, comprising the plaintiffs and the defendants. Hence, the suit properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and they are in joint enjoyment of the same.

5.4. The suit items No.2 to 4 were purchased from and out of the joint family income derived from the 1^st item of the suit property. The 2^nd defendant has been managing the properties on behalf of the joint family and he also purchased other properties from the income derived from the joint family. As the plaintiffs are unmarried daughters, they are also coparcenars to the ancestral properties and have equal rights. As the 2^nd defendant acted against the interest of the plaintiffs and refused to allot their shares, they filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession along with the relief of permanent injunction.

6. The 2nd defendant defended the suit by making the following contentions in his written statement :

6.1. The land measuring 18 acres and 40 cents in S.No.113 situated in Yelagiri Village was acquired by Periya Vellai Gounder through purchase, by virtue of a sale deed dated 01.05.1930. He had other properties also. It is false to state that after the demise of Periya Vellai Gounder, his sons viz., 2^nd defendant and Govindan orally partitioned the properties and in the said partition, the lands measuring 18 acres and 40 cents in S.No.113 were allotted to the share of 2^nd defendant.

6.2. There was a partition in wh