Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act grants daughters equal rights to inheritance in coparcenary properties, which necessitates modification of prior partition decrees that fail to account for such equality.

JUDGMENT :

The Defendants 4, 6, 8 and 9 in O.S. No. 137 of 2012 are on appeal praying to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 03.10.2013 made in O.S. No. 137 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

2. The Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, as Plaintiffs, have filed the suit in O.S. No. 137 of 2012 for the relief of partition of the suit properties into 24 equal shares, by metes and bounds and to allot 7 such shares to them.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to as per their rank in the suit as 'Plaintiffs' and 'Defendants' as the case may be.

4. As per the plaint averments, the first Plaintiff is the second wife of Late. Kaliannan. The second Plaintiff is the daughter born to the first Plaintiff through the said Kaliannan. The first Defendant is the son of Late. Kaliannan born through his first wife. The second and third Defendants are daughters born through the first wife of Late. Kaliannan. The fourth and fifth Defendants in the suit are sisters of late. Kaliannan. The sixth Defendant is the husband of Kaliammal, pre-deceased sister of Kaliannan. The 7^th Defendant is the son of the pre-deceased sister of Kaliannan namely Kaliammal. The Defendants 8 and 9 are the children born to one Subramani, who is the pre-deceased son of Kaliammal, sister of Kaliannan.

5. According to the Plaintiffs, Kaliannan married his first wife and after the death of his first wife, he married the first Plaintiff herein as his second wife. Out of such wedlock, the second Plaintiff was born on 27.03.1991. It was further stated that the marriage of the Defendants 2 and 3, who are daughters born to Kaliannan and his first wife was solemnised much before 1989.

6. The Plaintiff further proceeds to state that the suit properties were owned, possessed and enjoyed by Periyanna Gounder, grand father of Kaliannan. The suit properties were in joint possession of Kaliyannan and his father late. Ramasamy Gounder. Mr. Ramasamy Gounder, father of Kaliannan died intestate on 04.11.1994 leaving behind (i) Kaliannan, father of the second Plaintiff (ii) fourth Defendant (iii) fifth Defendant and (iv) Marappan, husband of pre-deceased sister Kaliammal. On the death of Ramasamy Gounder, the above said Kaliannan and three others have acquired co-parcenary rights in the property in which Kaliyannan have got 1/4 equal share. Subsequently, Kaliyannan died on 17.12.2003 leaving behind the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 1 to 3, children born to first wife of Kaliyannan. Since the plaint described property had not been divided by metes and bounds, the Plaintiffs sought for partition and to divide the suit property into 24 equal share and to give to the Plaintiffs 7 such shares. However, the Defendants did not come forward to effect an amicable partition and therefore, the suit was filed.

7. On notice, the first Defendant filed a written statement contending that Ramasamy Gounder died intestate and on his death, the suit properties devolved upon his only son Kaliyanna Gounder and three daughters namely Kaliammal, Kamakshi and Nallammal and each one of them have acquired 1/4 equal share. Kaliyanna Gounder died and his 1/4 share devolved upon his only son Mahendran, the first Defendant and three daughters Kannammal (second Defendant), Thangammal (third Defendant) and Latha (second Plaintiff) and Suseela (first Plaintiff). However, the first Defendant contended that there was no occasion for the first Defendant to effect partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds, but the Plaintiff