JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti is the appellant in this second appeal. She filed a partition suit claiming 1/4th share in the suit properties. The suit properties are spread over in three schedules and are 11 items in number.

2.The case of the plaintiff is that the properties originally belonged to Muthaiah Nadar her grand father. Muthaiah Nadar had two sons namely Madasamy Nadar and Srinivasa Nadar. Srinivasa Nadar pre-deceased Muthaiah Nadar as well as Madasamy Nadar. He does not appear to have married or had any issue. Madasamy got married to Sudamani. They begot three sons namely respondents 1 to 3 herein and a daughter, the appellant herein. Madasamy passed away on 29.09.1974. Sudamani passed away on

26.11.1974. Both died intestate.

3.The case of the plaintiff is that as one of the four children, she is entitled to 1/4th share. The defence taken by the brothers / R1 to R3 herein was that the plaintiff Muththuthai @ Chinnathai got married in the year 1967 itself. Therefore, she cannot claim any right to the coparcenary property. It was further pleaded that oral partition took place among brothers later. The properties had been divided among them and the revenue records have also been mutated. One of the items was sold prior to the institution of the suit in favour of the fourth respondent herein. Therefore, according to the brothers/R1 to R3 herein, the plaintiff/sister did not have any right to maintain the suit for partition in respect of the coparcenary properties. The defence put forth by the defendants herein was accepted by the trial Court and the suit came to be dismissed on 15.09.2006. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.28 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Kovilpatti and the Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Questioning the dismissal of the appeal on

23.10.2007, the present second appeal came to be filed.

4.The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“(a) Whether the judgment and decree of the Court below is perverse on account of its failure to consider the provisions of Act 39 of 2005, amending Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as to whether it has got overriding effect and makes Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990 introducing Section 29A to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ineffective?

(b) Whether the judgment and decree of the Court below is perverse on account of its failure to consider the substantial question as to whether a daughter who married prior to 25.03.1989 ie., coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990 is entitled to any share in the ancestral property of her father who died intestate?

(c) Whether the judgment and decree of the court below is perverse in non-suiting the appellant on the facts and circumstances the case even after making out a case for co-ownership?”

5.During the pendency of this appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given its authoritative ruling on the central Act 39 of 2005 amending Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1. It has been clarified that the interpretation given in Vineeta Sharma case would govern all the pending proceedings, even if they are at the stage of second appeal. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid ruling, the first substantial question of law has to be answered in favour of the appellant. There is no need to go into the issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990. There is no need to answer the second and third substantial questions of law. In view of the favorable answer given in respect of the first substantial question of law in the light of Vineeta Sharma case, the judgment and decree are set aside. The second appeal is partly allowed.

Preliminary decree is granted in favour of the plaintiff / appellant herein in respect of her ¼ share in the s