Ancestral property entitlement under Hindu Succession Act limits the plaintiff's share to 1/8, not 3/8, affirming the rights of coparceners post-amendment.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

1. Challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court granting preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 3/8^th share in the suit schedule properties and separate possession and also declaring that the settlement deed dated 27.01.2012 executed by Raja Gounder and third defendant in favour of the first defendant is null and void, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The parties herein are arrayed to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant. The second defendant is another daughter of the first defendant born through second marriage of the first defendant during the subsistence of the first marriage. The second defendant was having a brother named Raja had died intestate as bachelor. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The family geneology is as follows:-

3. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant's great grandfather Rasi Gounder has two sons namely Karuppagounder(first defendant grand father) and Sengodagounder. They jointly sold their ancestral property in the Namakkal district and purchased the suit properties through various sale deeds in the year 1965 & 1968 and they were put into common hotchpot of the ancestral nucleus and thereafter, on 11.09.1970, the said Sengoda Gounder and Raja Gounder partitioned the ancestral joint family between themselves through a registered partition deed. Hence, the plaintiff’s grandfather Raja Gounder through the income derived from the ancestral property has purchased various properties through three sale deeds of the year 1986 and the plaintiff’s father Karuppannan purchased some properties through sale deeds dated 1988 and 1991. The said Raja Gounder and Karuppannan i.e. the 1st defendant has no individual source of income to purchase any property. The said properties were purchased from the income derived from the ancestral property. The said Raja Gounder and his wife Pavayee Ammal has executed a settlement deed pertaining to the suit property in the name of 1st defendant through a registered settlement deed dated 27.01.2012. The said settlement deed is void as the settlement mentioned properties are ancestral joint family properties and the executors are not the sole owners to execute settlement deed. Hence, settlement deed does not bind of affect the right of the plaintiff in any way. Hence, the plaintiff being the daughter of the first defendant seeks allotment of 3/8th share in the suit property and thus, the suit for partition and declaring the settlement deed dated 27.01.2012 as null and void.

4. The defendants admitting the relationship denied that the properties are not ancestral properties and contended that the properties are self acquired properties of the first defendant. The first defendant's father Raja Gounder and his wife Pavayee, third defendant have jointly executed a settlement deed on 27.01.2012 in favour of the first defendant in respect of the first defendant's father self acquired properties. Thus, the suit properties are separate properties of the first defendant and the plaintiff has no right to claim any share in the suit properties.

5. On the basis of pleadings and evidence, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare that she has 3/8th share in the suit properties as prayed for?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare the settlem