JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

The three plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants against the judgment of the learned single Judge. The trial court denied relief in relation to 'B' schedule on the premise that a life interest subsisted in favour of the mother of the parties. She, unfortunately, passed away pending the first appeal and therefore, the learned single Judge made allotment as regards 'B'

schedule.

Now, the dispute is only as regards plaint 'A' schedule.

The finding of the learned single Judge is that since the plaintiffs are females, they are not entitled to share at par with the male heirs in that property, which is an ancestral property. By virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, the females also get share. There can be no dispute on this. In support is the judgment of the Apex Court in G.Sekar v. Geetha [2009(6) SCC AFA.61/95

99] and that of this Court in Janardhanan v. Rugmini [ 2010(3) KLT 7 ]. These judgments and the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by Act 39 of 2005, apply since, as of now, there is only a preliminary decree and no partition has been effected between parties.

For the aforesaid reasons, we vacate the find