The properties in question were determined to be ancestral, granting coparcenary rights to the daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

This Second Appeal is filed by the first defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Kallakurichi dated 10.07.2013 in AS.No.4 of 2011 confirming the judgment and decree of the second Additional District Munsif Court at Kallakurichi dated 22.10.2010 in O.S.No.269 of 2006.

2.The suit was laid for partition and separate possession. The Trial Court granted a preliminary decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7th share in the suit properties. The same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present Second Appeal has been preferred.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

4. The relationship between the parties is admitted. The appellant is the first defendant. He has two sons, namely, the second and sixth defendants, and three daughters, namely, the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4. The fifth defendant is the sister of the first defendant.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties are ancestral joint family properties. In respect of Item No.1, it is pleaded that the first defendant sold an ancestral property in S.No.33/3, Malliyakarai Village, with well and electricity service connection, and out of the sale proceeds purchased Item No.1 at Indhili Village, as evidenced by the recitals in the sale deed dated 28.02.1973 (Ex. A4). In respect of Item No.2, it is pleaded that it is ancestral property situated at Malliyakarai Village. The plaintiff further pleaded that the first defendant executed a settlement deed dated 26.04.2001 in favour of the second defendant in respect of Item No.2 without authority and that such unilateral disposition cannot defeat her lawful share. After issuance of notice dated 29.01.2006 and receipt of reply, the suit came to be filed.

6. The first defendant denied the joint family character and contended that Item No.1 is his self-acquired property purchased out of his earnings as a carpenter and not from any ancestral nucleus. He further contended that the alleged sale proceeds were insufficient after discharge of debts. He also raised objections regarding partial partition and pleaded that the plaintiff had been given sufficient seervarisai at the time of her marriage. He relied upon a Will dated 27.06.1999 and the settlement deed dated 26.04.2001.

7. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. The other defendants remained ex parte.

8. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, held that both items are ancestral joint family properties and granted a preliminary decree for partition.The First Appellate Court confirmed the same.

9. In the Second Appeal, the first defendant contended that he inherited the properties from his father Periyasamy Asari who died in the year 1954 and that such inheritance did not make the properties ancestral; that the properties are his separate properties; and that the plaintiff cannot claim partition during his lifetime. It was also contended that one son of the first defendant died bachelor and that the first defendant would be entitled to that share.

10. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

1. When the properties inherited by the appellant from his father are his absolute properties and cannot be ter