Daughters born after the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act in 2005 are coparceners and have the right to claim a share in the joint Hindu family property.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 21.12.2021

PRONOUNCED ON: 04.01.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

S.A. No.1139 of 2010

and M.P. No.1 of 2010

1.Pachiammal

... 1^st Appellant / Plaintiff

2.Mannammal

... 2^nd Appellant /2^nd Defendant

versus

Arjuna Gounder

...Respondent /1^st Defendant

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil

Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2010

made in A.S.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal

District Judge, Villupuram, reversing the judgment and decree

dated 22.10.2009 made in O.S.No.75 of 2007 on the file of the

learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

For Appellants : Mr.R.Agilesh

For Respondent : Ms.J.Prithvi

for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

J U D G M E N T

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 23.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2010 on the file

of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, reversing

the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2009 passed in O.S.No.75 of

2007 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,

Tindivanam.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The first appellant in this appeal preferred the above

referred suit as against the respondent and against the second

appellant, seeking the relief of preliminary decree for

partition, allowing her 1/3^rd share, in order to pass final

decree with metes and bounds.

3.The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, by

judgment and decree dated 22.10.2009, decreed the suit, as the

plaintiff and the second defendant are each entitled to 1/3^rd

share in 'A' and 'B' schedule property. Excluding 5^th and 6^th item

of 'A' schedule property and 10^th item of 'B' schedule property

and each an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the Fixed Deposit, which

is in the name of Annadurai. In the appeal, the learned

Principal District Judge, Villupuram, reversed the findings

arrived at by the trial Court and ultimately, the suit was

dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the said findings, the

plaintiff and the second defendant, are before this Court with

the present Second Appeal.

4.For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties, are

referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial

Court.

5.The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

(i)

The plaintiff and the second defendant are

sisters. First defendant, is their father. Krishna Gounder,

Govinda Gounder and Kuppan, are the brothers of the first

defendant. One Raja Gounder was their father. On 20.08.1987, the

first defendant and his other 3 brothers had partitioned the

property by a registered Partition Deed. In the said partition,

the plaint 'A' schedule property was allotted to the first

defendant.

(ii)

Those properties are the Joint Hindu family

properties and so, the same was enjoyed by the first defendant

along with his two daughters, as a Joint Hindu family property.

'B' schedule property was purchased by the first defendant from

the nucleus of the 'A' schedule property. After selling the

Sl.Nos.5 and 6 of the 'A' schedule property, the first defendant

had purchased Sl.Nos.8 to 10 of the 'B' schedule property. The

first defendant never enjoyed those properties in a separate

manner and so, the suit schedule property, is not his separate

property.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

(iii)

The plaintiff got married on 06.07.1992.

Similarly, the second defendant got married on 20.08.2000. When

at the time, the Hindu Succession Act was amended in the year of

1989, both the plaintiff and the second defendant was unmarried

and hence, they are entitled to 1/3^rd share in the suit 'A' and

'B' schedule property. Now, the first