A registered release deed executed prior to the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 nullifies daughters' co-parcenery claims, as no co-parcenery existed at the time of the amendment.

JUDGMENT :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

1. These two first appeals have been preferred by the third defendant and the plaintiffs respectively in O.S.No.38 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram challenging the dismissal of a partition suit.

(A) Pleading of the parties before the trial Court are as follows:

2. According to the plaint averments, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of one Appavu Pillai. The said Appavu Pillai had died leaving behind his three sons namely Jeganathan Pillai, Mari @ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai and Subramaniam. All three of them entered into a partition on 14.03.1958 in which the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of Mari @ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai.

3. It is further contended in the plaint that Mari @ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai had three wives. His first wife is Padmavathi and the third defendant is the daughter born through the said Padmavathi. The second wife is one Amsavalli, through her, he was blessed with a son Balasubramaniam. The said Balasubramaniam had passed away leaving behind his wife (first defendant) and his daughter (second defendant).

3.It is further contended in the plaint that Mari@ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai had married one Meenakshi as the third wife who is is the first plaintiff in the suit. Through her, he was blessed with a daughter by name Kalaivani who is arrayed as second plaintiff. It is further contended in the plaint that Mari @ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai along with his two daughters and the son Balasubramaniam constituted Hindu joint family and they were all co-parceners along with their father in respect of the schedule mentioned properties.

4. It is further contended in the plaint that Mari @ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai had constructed houses and shopping complex in the schedule property from and out of the funds derived by the joint family property. The said Balasubramaniam did not have any separate income and had not developed or purchased property of his own. Mari @ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai had passed away intestate on 02.02.2012 at Chennai leaving his wife Meenakshi, his daughters Thiripura Sundari and Kalaivani and the defendants 1 and 2 (as wife and daughter of predeceased son Balasubramaniam) as his legal heirs.

5. It is further contended in the plaint that the defendants 1 and 2 have started claiming that the suit schedule properties are their absolute properties and were making clandestine move to dispose the schedule mentioned properties. The 2^nd plaintiff has contended that she has got a right by birth as co-parcener as per Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005. The plaintiffs have jointly claimed 2/4^th share.

6. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement admitting the relationship of the parties and also admitting the fact that the properties in the hands of Appavu Pillai were ancestral in nature. However, the defendants 1 and 2 contended that only Mari @ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai and Balasubramaniam constituted coparcenary. The daughters namely second plaintiff and the third defendant cannot become co-parceners in respect of ancestral properties.

7. It is further contended in the written statement that the houses and shopping complex were not constructed out of the joint family income. They were constructed from and out of the income of the deceased Balasubramaniam. At the time of death of Mari @ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai, he had not left any ancestral property.

8. It is further contended in the written statement that the said Mari @ K.A.Meenakshi Sundaram Pillai had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the third defendant under Ex.X1 on 14.10