The court affirmed that a daughter's rights as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession Act arise only if the father is alive at the time of the amendment, limiting her share due to prior partition.

JUDGMENT

This Appeal Suit is filed to set aside the Judgment dated 14.07.2011 made in O.S. No. 591 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court – III, Coimbatore.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal Suit, are as follows:-

2.1. The Appellant had instituted the suit in O.S. No. 591 of 2010 for the relief of partition and separate possession in the suit property. According to the Plaintiff, her parents Palanisamy Gounder and Karuppathal were blessed with three children and they are (i) Rukmani (Plaintiff), Ponnusamy (first Defendant) and one Rathnakumar. It was stated that Rathnakumar died on 02.09.2004 leaving behind the Defendants 2 to 4 as his legal heirs. According to the Plaintiff, her father Palanisamy died before 1957. During his life time, her father was in possession of ancestral property. It was further stated that on 30.08.1957, a partition took place between her father on the one part and the deceased Rathnakumar represented by his mother Karuppathal. In that partition, “C” Schedule was allotted to first Defendant and Rathnakumar, who were minors by then. Subsequently, on 07.09.1959, the “C” Schedule property was sold to purchase the plaint schedule property by the minors. Thus, the suit property was ancestral in nature in which the Plaintiff has got a share. After the death of her mother Karupathal on 29.10.1993, the Plaintiff demanded 1/3 share in the plaint schedule property but the first Defendant did not accepts it. Therefore, on 22.09.2008, a legal notice was issued demanding the first Defendant to give her due share. Though the notice dated 22.09.2008 was received, the first Defendant did not come for an amicable partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff met the first Defendant in person on 01.08.2010 and demanded her legitimate share in the plaint schedule property. However, the first Defendant asserted that no share could be given to the Plaintiff, hence, the Plaintiff has come forward with the suit.

2.2. On notice, the first Defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia that it is true that a partition took place on 30.08.1957 in which the first Defendant and his brother Rathinakumar were allotted properties. It is equally true that the said property was sold on 07.09.1959 and the suit properties were purchased. The first Defendant also admitted that the property is an ancestral in nature, however, the claim of the Plaintiff for 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property is not proper. According to the first Defendant, in the family partition that took place on 30.08.1957, he and his brother Rathinakumar were allotted 1/3 share and the remaining 1/3 share was allotted to his father Palanisamy Gounder. It was further stated that his father Palanisamy Gounder died before the Hindu Succession Act came into force on 17.06.1956. The Plaintiff had not specifically indicated the date of death of his father. Had Palanisamy Gounder died before 17.06.1956, then, his 1/3^rd share would have been inherited by his wife Karuppathal. In such event, the 1/3^rd share of Palanisamy Gounder would have been inherited by Karuppathal and upon her death, it would further devolve upon her two sons viz., first Defendant, Rathinakumar and the daughter, Plaintiff. Consequently, the Plaintiff would have become entitled for 1/12 share. However, the Plaintiff is not even entitled to such share as his father died after 17.06.1956, on which date, The came into force. If Palanisamy Gounder died after 17.06.1956, then his 1/3^rd share would devolve upon his two sons, his wife and his only daughter, the Plaintiff. Therefore, even assuming that the Plaintiff has got any share, she is only entitled for 1/12 share. Subsequently, on the death of the mother, the Plaintiff would have got an additional 1/36 share. Thus, totally, the Plaintiff would get only 1/12 + 1/36 share = 1/9 share in the plaint schedule property. The claim of the Plaintiff that she would get the benefit of