Daughters became coparceners under Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989, allowing them equal rights in joint family properties.

JUDGMENT :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai, dated 06.12.2018, in O.S.No.38 of 2017, granting 3/4th share from ‘A’ Schedule Item Nos.1 to 15, 25 and 26 and the entire ‘B’ Schedule property to the plaintiffs, the 2^nd defendant in the suit has filed the present Appeal.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3.The plaintiffs and the 2^nd defendant are the daughters of the 1^st defendant. The defendants 3 to 18 are the purchasers of some of the suit A-Schedule properties from the 1^st defendant, on various dates.

4.1.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the entire A-Schedule properties are ancestral properties of the 1^st defendant and out of the joint family nucleus, he has purchased the B-Schedule property, which is a vacant site and thereafter, the 1st defendant has put up a lodge in the B-Schedule property out of the joint family nucleus. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, on the date of purchase of the B-Schedule property on 17.06.1988, the 1^st defendant had no other independent business except cultivation in the ancestral properties. The income from the A-Schedule properties was used to purchase the B-Schedule property. After purchase of the B-Schedule property, a lodge has been constructed in the name of “Sri Ram Lodge” out of the surplus income derived from the A-Schedule properties and the joint exertion of the plaintiffs and the 2^nd defendant, for the benefit of the joint family members. Though permission and other licence stood in the name of the 1^st defendant, the property was treated as a joint family property. All the Revenue records were standing in the name of the 1^st defendant only as the Karta of the joint family.

4.2.While so, in the month of January, 2008, there arose some misunderstanding between the plaintiffs and the 1^st defendant and according to the plaintiffs, the 1^st defendant was acting against the welfare of the joint family, as he failed to produce the income accounts and as well as the lodge maintenance expenditure. When the matter stood thus, the 2^nd defendant claimed some false title over the B-Schedule property on the ground that the 1^st defendant has settled the property in her favour. After that, the plaintiffs came to know that a settlement deed dated 04.12.2008 has been executed by the 1st defendant in the favour of the 2^nd defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the same is not binding on them and the same has been obtained by playing fraud. It is their further contention that the 1^st defendant has no right to execute any sale or settlement deed in respect of the joint family properties and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs' share in the B-Schedule property. Despite the demand made by the plaintiffs for partition, the same was refused by the defendants 1 and 2.

4.3.Further, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants 3 to 7 and one Venkatachala Gounder are the purchasers of some of the A- Schedule properties from the 1^st defendant under various sale deeds and on different dates without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs issued legal notice on 03.04.2013 to the defendants 1 to 7 and one Venkatachala Gounder.

4.4.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the marriage of the plaintiffs was performed after the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990) came into force on 25.03.1989 and there was no partition effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 3/4th share in the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties as per Act 1 of 1990. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for partition of their 3/4th share in the A-Schedule and B-Schedule properties and for other reliefs.

5.1.The defendants 1 and 2 contested the su