Daughters are recognized as coparceners under amended Hindu Succession law, entitling them to equal shares in ancestral properties despite prior dispositions, affirming their rights irrespective of the father’s death before the amendment.

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.

The defendants in the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur, are the appellants in the above appeal.

2.The respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal, as plaintiffs, originally filed a suit in O.S.No.1 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Court, Perambalur, and later, it was transferred to the Principal District Court, Ariyalur, and re-numbered as O.S.No.3 of 2011. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for a declaration that they are absolute owners of the suit A-schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment. The plaintiffs sought for declaration of title and recovery of possession as an alternative prayer. Further they sought for preliminary decree for partition of their ½ share in all the suit properties as a second alternative probably in the wake of defendants setting up a Will alleged to have been executed by 2^nd plaintiff's father.

3.Before dealing with the case of the respective parties, it is necessary to refer to the relationship among the parties. The 1^st plaintiff is the mother of 2^nd plaintiff. The husband of 1^st plaintiff and the father of 2^nd plaintiff is one Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai, who died on 29.01.2005. The said Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai had three brothers and three sisters and defendants 1 to 3 are the two daughters and the son of one of the brothers of Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai, by name Kalyanasundaram. The other defendants in the suit are tenants in respect of some of the suit properties.

4.The suit properties have been described as A and B-schedule properties. The suit B-schedule properties are only movables. However, suit A-schedule properties consist of 7 items and Item No.7 consists of properties in 37 survey fields both ryotwari nanja and punja lands.

5.The case of the plaintiffs in the suit is that the suit properties originally belong to the father of the 2^nd plaintiff, by name Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai. It is specifically contended by the plaintiffs in the plaint that the suit properties are the properties obtained by Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai under a Partition Deed that had been entered into by him and his brothers in 1953 and properties purchased with the income derived therefrom as well as the amounts provided by the 1^st plaintiff, namely, the wife of Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai, who was a teacher. It is specifically contended that Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai was never employed. Therefore, the suit properties are claimed to be joint family properties of Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai and the 2^nd plaintiff, who claims to be a coparcener from the date of her birth by virtue of Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989.

6.Stating that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai, the main prayer in the suit is for declaration and for consequential injunction. The alternative prayer is for declaration and recovery of possession in case the Court holds that the A-schedule properties are in the possession of defendants. Since defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement setting up a Will executed by Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai, the plaint was further amended to include the alternative prayer for partition and separate possession of suit A-schedule properties.

7.The suit was contested by the appellants mainly on the ground that Sri.P.Veeraraghava Pillai