The court affirmed that properties purchased from joint family income are ancestral, entitling the daughter to a share as a coparcener under the amended Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

The first respondent in the appeal filed the suit in O.S.No.67 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli against the appellant and the other respondents for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, preliminary decree was passed in part in respect of schedule 'a, c, d, g, h, i' in the first item of the suit properties and the suit in respect of 'b, e, f' in the first item and other item Nos.2 to 4 is dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the third defendant in the suit has filed the present appeal. Neither the plaintiff has filed any appeal or cross objection for disallowed items nor any other defendants have challenged the preliminary decree passed for the certain items. Now, only the present appeal is before this Court, which is challenged by the third defendant in the suit.

2(i). The case of the first respondent/plaintiff in brief as per the plaint filed before the trial Court is that the 1^st schedule of the suit properties belonged to one Suyambulinga Nadar, which are the ancestral properties of the said Suyambulinga Nadar and he derived income from the said ancestral properties and he constructed a house in the 'a' schedule property in the year 1940. He got two sons and three daughters. The said Suyambulinga Nadar, as a Kartha of the Hindu Joint Family, conducted agricultural activities and business and derived income from both. He sent his son/second respondent herein, who is the father of the appellant, to the Sri Lanka for doing business and he had provided fund from the income derived from the ancestral properties in the year 1948 and the second respondent came from Sri Lanka to native in the year 1952. Thereafter, the Kartha Suyambulinga Nadar gave money to both the sons to do the business at Chennai in the year 1955. The sons of the said Suyambulinga Nadar started Marthandan Stores at Chennai and they started business out of from the ancestral nucleus. Out of the income derived from the agricultural properties and business, the said Suyambulinga Nadar purchased several properties in the name of the second respondent, who is the father of the appellant, on 16.06.1971, 17.04.1972, 11.01.1973 and 16.02.1976 and some of the properties were purchased in the name of the Suyambu Marthandan, who is the uncle of the appellant, and his wife Annakili. The property purchased in the name of Annakili was subsequently gifted to the third respondent herein on 01.10.1974, who is the elder daughter-in-law of the said Suyambulinga Nadar. The third respondent herein is the wife of the second respondent herein. The respondents 4 to 6 are their sons and the respondents 1, 7 and 8 are the daughters of the respondents 2 and 3. From the year 1975, the second and third respondents along with their children were residing at Chennai. At that time, the appellant and the respondents 4 to 8 were helped the joint family business after completing their studies. From the income from the joint family properties, the other properties and buildings were purchased and the marriages were also solemnized.

(ii) The Kartha of the joint family Suyambulinga Nadar and two of his sons were orally partitioned the properties in the year 1980. As per the oral partition, the properties which are standing in their individual names, were belong to them and the remaining joint family properties were to be partitioned by way of a registered partition deed. The second respondent and his brother Suyambu Marthandan partitioned the properties on 19.08.1980. As per the partition deed, the first item 'a' schedule of the property to be enjoyed by the said Suyambulinga Nadar and his wife till their life time and after their life time, the properties goes to their two sons namely, the second respondent and his brother Suyambu Marthandan. The Kartha of the joint family, the said Suyambulinga Nadar died in the year 1985. Thereafter, both the sons partitioned the suit properties. All the suit properties were purchased only from