Rights for partition in ancestral property for daughters recognized post the 2005 amendment, with claims barred by limitation in the absence of joint possession.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal Suit filed against the judgment and decree passed in the partition suit O.S.No. 365 of 2019.

2. The case of the plaintiff/Vatsala:

The plaintiff is the elder daughter of late Panchatcharam. The first defendant Muniammal is the younger daughter of Panchatcharam. P.Munusamy is the only son of Panchatcharam. The said Munusamy died and the defendants 2 to 4 are his daughter, son and wife respectively.

3. Panchatcharam died in the year 1970 leaving behind his wife, son and two daughters. The daughters got married after the demise of Panchatcharam. Even after marriage, the plaintiff used to visit the village and inspect the properties as co-owner. Ponnammal, the wife of Panchatcharam died in the year 2014. After the death of Panchatcharam, his only son Munusamy as Karta of the family was maintaining the ancestral properties on behalf of other members of the family. The properties were enjoyed by all the children of Panchatcharam as joint family property. The plaintiff requested her brother Munusamy for partition during his life time. He gave evasive reply and did not consider her request. After the death of Munusamy, she came to know about the collusive partition deed dated 02.03.2016 between her brother Munusamy and his children. Also, came to know that patta for the properties has also been mutated in their name. Being the daughter of Panchatcharam and the property is the ancestral rd property, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3 share in the property. The partition within the family of Munusamy for entire property excluding the other two legal heirs is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

4. Case of the first defendants:

The suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff, after her marriage at the age of 21 years, was living separately with her family. She is not a member of Panchatcharam family, after her marriage. She never in joint enjoyment of the suit property. She has no right in the property. Her brother Munusamy after the death of the father had become the absolute owner of the property and enjoying it. The partition among his family members in the year 2016 is valid. She had not claimed any share in the property. The partition claim of her sister, several years after her marriage is vexatious and unreasonable.

5. Case of the defendants 2 to 4:

The suit is ill conceived and without any cause of action. The plaintiff after her marriage had last right in the ancestral property, since she was not in joint possession of the property. Munusamy, being the sole male heir of Panchacharam, after the demise of Panchatcharam in the year 1970, the ancestral property devolved on Munusamy. He was enjoying the property exclusively without any hindrance. During his life time, Munusamy along with his children entered into a partition and got the partition deed registered at SRO, Arani on 02.03.2016. This partition was duly acted and records are mutated. Munusamy and his legal heirs alone are entitled for the suit property. The properties were never in common enjoyment with the plaintiff. After her marriage, at the age of 21 years, the plaintiff left the family of Panchatcharam.

6. After the demise of Panchatcharam his son Munusamy enjoying the property as his absolute property, it was under his cultiva