Daughter is entitled to a share in ancestral property regardless of claims of absolute ownership by the father, as the property retains its coparcenary nature under Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

G. Jayachandran, J.

Appeal preferred by the defendant who has lost partition suit filed by his daughter.

2. The brief facts involved in the appeal are as follows :

The suit property is situated in Koogalur Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District. The plaintiff, who is the daughter of the defendant, filed a suit for partition alleging that she was born to the defendant on 30.11.1998. Due to misunderstanding between her parents, they got separated and a decree of divorce was granted. The plaintiff has been residing with her mother since then. At the time of filing the suit, she was a minor and was subsequently declared a major on 29.08.2017.

3. It is contended that the suit property is ancestral in nature, which was allotted to her father/defendant and being ancestral property, she is a coparcener under Section 6 of Hindu SUCCESSION ACT , is entitled for ½ share in the property. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that the property was allotted to him by way of oral partition between himself, his father and his brother. The portion of the property allotted to him was subsequently improved by him using funds availed as a loan from the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank. In fact, the property was allotted to him pursuant to an earlier partition suit in O.S.No.211 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, between the defendant and his sibling. After the said partition, the property became the absolute property of the defendant and therefore, lost its character as coparcenary property.

4. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court had framed the following issues:-

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5. To substantiate the claim for partition, the plaintiff examined herself and marked five (5) exhibits. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were examined and two (2) Court exhibits were marked, namely:

(i) the Statement of Account for the loan availed by the defendant in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank and

(ii) the Memo of Deposit of Title Deed.

6. The trial Court, after considering the facts and the evidence adduced by both parties, allowed the suit and passed a preliminary decree, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the suit property, along with the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant's men and agents. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the desertion of the plaintiff's mother was voluntary and as a result of her desertion, the life of the defendant got ruined. It is further contended that the plaintiff been used as a tool by the estranged wife to create and cause harassment to the defendant.

7. The property was improved by availing a loan from the bank and the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that such improvements made by the defendant disentitle the plaintiff from claiming equal share in the property. Further, the plaintiff, having failed to discharge her duties as a daughter, cannot claim any share in the property. It is also contended that in view of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.211 of 1999 , the earlier round of partition litigation between the siblings of his father, the character of the property has now become absolute and not coparcenary property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any share under Section 6 of the Hindu SUCCESSION ACT .

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2- the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.211 of 1999 , would clearly show that the property described i