J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff is the appellant in the Second Appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that her father who was the first defendant in the suit and his brother had partitioned among themselves the ancestral properties through a Partition Deed dated 01.07.1976. The further case of the plaintiff is that the property that was allotted to her father will continue to retain the status of a joint family property and by virtue of the coming into force of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, as a daughter, she will be entitled for half share in the suit property. When the plaintiff sought for her share and the first defendant was attempting to alienate the property in favour of third parties, the present suit came to be filed for the relief of partition and for allotment of half share in the suit property.

3. Both the Courts below proceeded on the basis that the property in question had the character of a joint family property and that by virtue of the earlier Settlement Deed dated 09.06.1962 executed by the father of the first defendant in favour of the first defendant’s wife as a life estate and in favour of the plaintiff as the vested remainder, the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any share in the suit property. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed before this Court.

4. The following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:

a) Whether the Courts below were right in holding that the appellant had relinquished her share in the ancestral properties of her father solely based on Ex.B1 executed by the grandfather of the appellant?

b) Whether the Courts below failed to notice the fact that as on the date when the appellant is said to have relinquished her share in the joint family property, such a right was not even available in law and the right was vested upon a female heir only after the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force?

c) Whether findings of both the Courts below can be rendered to be perverse due to improper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record?

5. Heard Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr.M.Vijaya Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Mr.V.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

6. The specific case of the appellants is that the suit property had the character of a joint family property and after the Partition Deed was executed between the first defendant and his brother through Ex.B3, whatever share was allotted to the first defendant should be recognised only as a joint family property and hence, by virtue of the 2005 Amendment Act, the plaintiff as a daughter, is entitled for a share in the property. A careful reading of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court shows that the Lower Appellate Court also proceeded on the footing that the property in question is a joint family property and that the plaintiff will have a share by virtue of the 2005 Amendment Act. However the Settlement Deed dated 09.06.1962, marked as Ex.B1, has been put against the plaintiff and the Lower Appellate Court has held that the property was given by the father of the first defendant with a specific undertaking that the mother of the plaintiff and the plaintiff will not claim any share in any other property in future. This undertaking was put against the plaintiff and hence the Lower Appellate Court denied the relief sought for by the plaintiff.

7. In the considered view of this Court, the extent to which the undertaking given by the mother of the plaintiff will bind the plaintiff who was admittedly a minor at the relevant point of time, is definitely a questionable issue. If the property is taken to be a joint family property, at the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 1962, there was no right for a woman in such a joint family property. This right was first recognised in the State of Tamil Nadu through the 1989 State amendment and thereafter by v