IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Where there is a direct collision between law made by State and that made by Parliament with respect to one of matters enumerated in Concurrent List, then, subject to provisions of clause (2), State law would be void to the extent of repugnancy.
(2) Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act with more benefits than Section 29-A, will determine rights of parties all over Country without any interruption.

JUDGMENT

T. Raja, J.—Mrs. P. Hemamalini, the unsuccessful plaintiff has brought this first appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2018 passed in O.S.No.181 of 2011 by the learned Additional District Judge, Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur.

2. Shri N. Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff and the second respondent/second defendant are the daughter and son of the first respondent/first defendant. The appellant and the respondents 1 & 2 belong to Hindu Undivided Family, wherein the first respondent is the Kartha and the appellant and the second respondent are the coparceners and they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till date without any metes and bounds. While so, the appellant/plaintiff got married on 6.6.2008. Even after the marriage, the appellant was residing in her parents house till September, 2011. Thereafter, she went and settled down at her matrimonial house demanding her legitimate share in the suit properties. But the respondents 1 & 2 have denied to partition the suit properties. Later on the appellant came to know that the respondents 1 & 2, denying her request for partition, have created some fake documents by suppressing the legitimate share of the appellant to the properties, as though a partition had taken place on 11.5.2001. Further the appellant came to know that in order to deceive the appellant from getting her legitimate share in the suit properties, the respondents 1 & 2 gave some portion of the suit properties as security to the third respondent/City Union Bank and obtained loan for individual purpose. Again the respondents 1 & 2 have also entered into an agreement with the fourth respondent/Indian Oil Corporation for running a petrol bunk outlet in a portion of the suit properties. Therefore, a legal notice was sent to the respondents 1 & 2 on 13.10.2011 demanding partition and to allot the legitimate share in the suit properties to the appellant. The respondents 1 & 2 received the notice on 17.10.2011. Instead of partitioning the suit properties, the second respondent alone sent a reply notice to the appellant on 21.10.2011 alleging that the respondents 1 & 2 had already partitioned the suit properties on 11.5.2001 and the appellant had released her right in favour of the second respondent on 3.10.2011. Therefore, the suit was filed in O.S.No.181 of 2011 before the Principal District Court, Salem, which was transferred to the file of Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur praying for a judgment and decree directing the defendants 1 & 2 to divide the suit properties into three equal shares by metes and bounds by taking into consideration of good and bad soil and allot one such share to the plaintiff and put her in separate possession, failing which to divide the suit properties by appointing a Court Commissioner for the purpose of the said partition and to declare the partition deed created by the defendants 1 & 2 on 11.5.2001 registered as Document No.1597 of 2001 in the Jalagandapuram Sub Registrar office as null and void and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and others from alienating or encumbering the suit properties to anyone until the partition is finally over.

3. Replying to the same, the first respondent filed a detailed written statement taking a stand that the suit was barred by limitation, because the appellant, after getting married in the year 2008, left for her matrimonial home; that she was not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties; that the suit properties had already been partitioned between the family members of the first respondent in the year 1984 itself and that the suit properties are not the ancestral properties as alleged by the appellant, hence, the appellant is not entitled to one third share in the suit properties. It was further explained in the written statement tha