ORDER

This revision is preferred challenging the order passed in I.A.No.1199/2018 in I.A.No.140/2006 in O.S.No.192/2000 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ponneri.

The revision petitioner is the second defendant in this suit for partition.

2.1 The admitted facts may be briefly summarised:

● A certain Munuswamy Naidu obtained some 11 items of properties vide partition deed dated 22.11.1991, which came to be executed between him and his brother Padmanaba Naidu.

● This case is all about Munuswamy Naidu's branch. Munuswamy Naidu had a son Subramani (the first plaintiff) and a daughter Malleswari (the second defendant). The third defendant is a certain Suguna, the purchaser under Munusamy Naidu.

● While so, Subramani laid a suit in O.S.No.192/2000 against his father Munuswamy Naidu for partition of ½ share in the suit property. On 25.02.2003, an exparte preliminary decree came to be passed, whereunder Munuswamy is declared to have ½ share in all the 11 items of properties.

● Some time later to the passing of the preliminary decree, in 2003, Subramani, the plaintiff, had passed away. Therefore, Subramani's wife Aruna filed an application for impleading herself as the heir of Subramani.

● While things stood thus, on 27.12.2004, Munuswamy Naidu, the father of had executed two documents. The first one is a sale deed in favour of Suguna and it covers the whole of Items 4,5,6 and 7. The second document is a settlement deed in favour of Malleswari (Munuswamy Naidu's daughter) and this document deals with whole of Items 1,2,3,8,9 & 10. The only property that was not dealt with by Munuswamy was item No.11.

● Be that as it may, Aruna, the widow of Subramani had taken out an application in I.A.No.140 of 2006 for passing final decree.

● Subsequently, Suguna the purchaser from Munuswamy filed two applications - one in I.A.No.130 of 2013 to reopen I.A.No.140 of 2006; and another in I.A.No.135 of 2013 to implead her as a party in the final decree proceedings. Both these applications came to be dismissed on

16.07.2013.

● In this background, Malleswari took out an application in I.A.No.1199/2018 in the final decree application in I.A.No.140 of 2006, for re-aligning the share consequent to the coming into force of Hindu Sucession (Amendment)Act, Central Act 39 of 2005, by which, the daughters were elevated to the status of coparcener, with equal right to property as that of the male coparcener.

● In between, Munuswamy Naidu had executed a Will dated 23.04.2008, bequeathing his right and property in favour of Malleswari. And some three years thereafter, on 13.05.2011, Munuswamy Naidu, died.

2.2 The stance of Malleswari can be explained :

● The amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act came into force on

09.9.2005, and in terms of proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act, it invalidates all alienation made after 20.12.2004, and Malleswari claims that she now being a coparcener, is entitled to 1/3 share in her own right.

● This is opposed to by the second plaintiff, the widow of Subramani, and Suguna, the third defendant, the purchaser of Munuswamy Naidu.

● The trial Court dismissed the application in I.A.1199/2018 filed by Malleswari, on the ground that the preliminary decree has become final.

Challenging this dismissal order, the present revision is preferred.

3.1 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the settlement deed dated 27.12.2004, which Munuswamy Naidu had executed in her favour is hit by lis pendens, and so was the sale deed he had executed in favour of Suguna. And her strategy is that by virtue of amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, she would be entitled to 1/3 share, and by virtue of the Will dated 23.04.2008, she would be entitled to another 1/3 share, which Munuswamy Naidu was entitled to, if there were no partition.

3.2 The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/Malleswari submits that ➢ The preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 25.02.2003, and the ratio of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharm