Daughters have equal rights as coparceners in ancestral properties, enabling them to demand partition; however, declaratory relief is required to challenge transactions made by the guardian.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

This Appeal Suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2017 passed in O.S. No.83 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal, whereby the suit for partition was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are referred to as referred in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff: The plaintiffs are the daughters of the 4th defendant. According to the plaintiffs, the first item of the suit schedule properties was derived from the estate of late M.S. Kuppusamy Gounder and, thereafter, under a registered partition deed dated 23.06.1992, the A-Schedule properties were allotted to the branch consisting of D1, D3, D4 and the husband of D5, who were stated to be in joint possession and enjoyment.

4. The plaintiffs further pleaded that the second and third items of the suit schedule properties are also joint family properties.

5. It is the plaintiffs’ case that the 3rd defendant, taking advantage of the situation in the family, procured a General Power of Attorney dated 07.10.2008 through D2 (as guardian/curator of D1) and also from D4, both for himself and as guardian representing the then minor plaintiffs. On the strength of the said power deed, the 3rd defendant executed alienations in favour of his wife, namely the 7th defendant.

6. According to the plaintiffs, the said transactions are vitiated and not binding on their shares. The plaintiffs therefore sought partition and allotment of 8/96 share each by way of a preliminary decree, with costs.

7. The case of the defendant: The 3^rd defendant, whose written statement was adopted by defendants 2 and 7, admitted the relationship and the partition deed dated 23.06.1992, but disputed the plaintiffs’ case regarding joint possession and the character of the suit properties. It was contended that certain properties were added to Item No.1 apart from those allotted under the partition deed and that some items had been sold long prior to the suit. It was further denied that Items 2 and 3 were joint family properties, and it was pleaded that the 4th defendant had undergone major surgery and that the 3rd defendant alone had met the medical expenses.

8. The power of attorney executed by the 4th defendant for himself and as natural guardian of the minor plaintiffs was sought to be justified, and it was contended that the sale deed and settlement deed dated 25.09.2009 executed in favour of the 7th defendant were valid and binding, as the properties dealt with were not joint family properties.

9. The 4th defendant, in his written statement, alleged that the 3rd defendant had acted fraudulently and against his interest by obtaining the power deed and executing sale deeds in favour of his wife and by creating a lease in favour of the 8th defendant without his knowledge.

10. The 8th defendant pleaded that the suit was filed at the instigation of the 4th defendant, that the factory was unfunctional, that a lease deed was executed to discharge bank loans, and that a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was paid as lease amount and further amounts were spent for machinery, all for family necessity, rendering the transaction binding on the plaintiffs.

11. The Trial Court framed necessary issues and examined the first plaintiff and the guardian of the plaintiffs as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A9. The defendants, except defendants 5 and 6 who were set ex parte, entered appearance through counsel but did not cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses, did not exa