J U D G M E N T

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2012 passed by the Principal District Judges Court, Erode (hereinafter referred to as Appellate Court) in A.S.No.68 of 2011. The fourth defendant in O.S.No.18 of 2006 is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. Earlier, O.S.No.18 of 2006 was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff before First Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Erode (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court) for the following relief:-

i. dividing the suit properties into two equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad soil;

ii. allotting one such share to the plaintiff* and put her in possession of the same;

iii.appointing a commissioner to divide the suit property in the aforesaid manner; and iv. granting a permanent injunction to restrain the fourth defendant** from trespassing into the suit properties to take possession forcibly or interfering in any manner with the plaintiff’s* peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till a permanent portion worked out between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4.

(* first respondent; ** appellant)

3. O.S.No.18 of 2006 filed by the first respondent/plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court by its Judgment and Decree dated

11.08.2010.

4. On further appeal by first respondent/plaintiff, the Appellate Court by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2012 in A.S.No.68 of 2011 partly reversed the Judgment and Decree dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.18 of 2006 dismissing the aforesaid suit. Operative portion of the impugned Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court reads as under:-

29. In the result, the appeal suit is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode dated 11.08.2010 are set aside. The suit in O.S.No.18 of 2006 is partly allowed and a preliminary decree is passed for partition of the suit properties into equal shares and allotment of one such share to the appellant/plaintiff. The suit, in so far as the permanent injunction is concerned, is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.

5. The appellant/fourth defendant purchased the suit schedule property from the third respondent/second defendant vide Ex.A2 Sale Deed dated 28.12.2005. The property is an ancestral property. The first and the second respondents/plaintiff and first defendant are the siblings born to one Seethappa Gounder who died on 28.09.1993. The first respondent got married on 26.06.1978. The dispute over the suit schedule property arises on account of Section 29-A and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

6. Section 29-A was inserted to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with effect from 25.03.1989. By a legal fiction, unmarried daughters were given the same rights as that of male coparcener over the coparcenary property.

7. Since the first respondent/plaintiff was married to one Nachimuthu on 26.06.1978, no claim for right over the property was made by the first respondent/plaintiff at the time when the Chapter II-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was made applicable in Tamil Nadu. Meanwhile, these ancestral properties had been mortgaged and there were certain debts which were discharged by the second respondent/first defendant.

8. In the year 2005, Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended by the Parliament with effect from 09.09.2005 which gave the rights even to the married daughters on par with sons albeit male coparceners.

9. As per proviso to Sub-Section (1) to Section 6, the amendment would not affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before 20.12.2004. In the background of the above amendment, the first respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.18 of 2006 for partition of the suit schedule property.

10. During the interregnum, the third respondent/second defendant, executed a sale deed and so