After partition, joint family property becomes self-acquired property, and daughters’ rights under the Hindu Succession Act do not extend to self-acquired property purchased post-partition.

JUDGMENT

Unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the appeal. The suit is filed for partition. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The parties are referred as per their ranking in the trial Court.

2. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant. The first defendant has married one Pavayee as second wife, since the first wife died without any issues. The defendants 2 & 3 are the children of the defendant and the said Pavayee. After death of the said Pavayee, the first defendant has married one Shanthi as third wife. The plaintiff is the daughter of the said Shanthi and the first defendant. Hence, the plaintiff, defendants 2 & 3 are the legal heirs of the first defendant. One portion of the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the first defendant's family. With regard to the said property, on 26.11.1983, partition effected between the first defendant, his parents, brothers and sister. Through that partition, 'A' schedule property was allotted to the first defendant. The first defendant had purchased one of the suit property on 25.04.1984 out of income derived from the 'A' schedule property which was allotted to the first defendant. Hence, the suit properties are ancestral property of the parties. The first defendant has executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant with regard to the entire suit properties on 05.02.2014. The above said settlement deed would not bind the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know the above said fact and then she pressurized the defendants 1 & 2 for partition on 02.03.2014. Hence, the parties are each entitled 1/4^th share. Hence, this suit.

3. The defendants 1 & 3 were set ex-parte before the trial Court

4. The brief case of the second defendant is as follows:

The suit property in S.No.177/1 to an extent of 3.36 cents land was acquired by the first defendant in the partition effected between him with his parents and his brothers. In the said partition, 'A' schedule property was allotted to the first defendant. At that time of partition, no marriage was held between the first defendant and the mother of the plaintiff. At that time of partition, the defendants 2 & 3 are only the legal heirs of the first defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from one Subramani and purchased the land in S.No.177/1 having 3.36 cents on 24.09.1984 and constructed a house in the said suit property and also digging well for irrigation and he is in possession of the same. The plaintiff was born on 10.05.1990. The land acquired through partition deed in the year 1983 and one of the sale deed registered in the year 1984 are the self acquired property of the first defendant. The first defendant has executed the settlement deed on 05.02.2014 in favour of the second defendant. Since then, the second defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the revenue records have also transferred in his name. The plaintiff have no right to seek any claim over the suit property. There is no cause of action to file the suit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession as prayed for?

2. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

During the trial, before the trial Court, the plaintiff herself has examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no witnesses was examined and no document was marked.

6. The findings of the trial Court: As per Ex.A1 partition deed dated 26.11.1983 shows that the property was divided among the first def