The court affirmed that daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties post-amendment, invalidating wrongful transactions made without their consent.

JUDGMENT :

S. SRIMATHY, J.

1. This Appeal Suit is filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 09.09.2022, passed in O.S.No.67 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.

2. The appellants herein are the defendants 1 & 2 in the suit and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The 5^th respondent is the 3^rd defendant in this suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per the ranking in the suit. And where ever defendants are mentioned it only indicates the 1^st and 2^nd defendants alone.

3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2015 for partition to divide the suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares and allot 1/5^th share each to the plaintiffs and 1^st defendant. And for declaration to declare that the Settlement Deed dated 10.10.2007 registered as Document No.5166/2007 and Mortgage Deed dated 24.10.2011 registered as Document No.8140/2011 are invalid and not binding in respect of the shares of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties and permanent injunction against the defendants to deal with their shares in the properties.

4. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd defendant is the wife of the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant had mortgaged property to 3^rd defendant, hence the prayer to declare the said mortgage is not binding on the plaintiffs, the 3^rd defendant is added as party.

5. The brief facts stated by the plaintiffs are that the 1^st schedule property is an ancestral property inherited by their father, Ramasamy Naidu, through unregistered partition deed dated 13.02.1970. The 2^nd schedule properties were purchased by their father through five sale deeds dated 28.11.1978, 13.10.1980, 18.05.1981, 09.05.1984, and 04.10.1989. Their father died intestate on 22.03.1996, leaving the plaintiffs and the 1^st defendant as legal heirs to the suit properties. The original copies of the aforesaid documents are with the 1^st defendant. Until the father was alive all the properties were in joint possession and enjoyment of the father, plaintiffs and 1^st defendant. The mother predeceased the father who died on 12.06.1977. During the life time of the father, the 1^st plaintiff was married in 1976, the 2^nd plaintiff in 1980, the 3^rd plaintiff in 1995 but the 4^th plaintiff was married after the demise of the father in the year 2000. Thereafter 1^st defendant had married the 2^nd defendant in the year 2003. The marriage of the 1^st defendant was solemnized without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the reason is the 1^st defendant refused to marry the person whom the 1^st plaintiff suggested and also, the parties refused to divide the property belonging to the mother. Despite the plaintiffs residing with their respective husbands in different places, they are in joint possession of the properties, there was no division by metes and bounds among the coparceners and the 1^st defendant was maintaining the lands on behalf of the plaintiffs and for himself. The 1^st defendant was earning profits through agricultural activities, after managing the expenses for agriculture, after paying the property tax, electricity bills, kists, the balance profits was being shared among the plaintiffs and the 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiffs are staying away from the property had changed the patta in his name and s