A claimant must prove the ancestral nature of properties to claim entitlement under the amended Hindu Succession Act; mere assertions without evidence are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1. The present Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2016 in A.S. No.5 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Court, Darmapuri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2015 passed in O.S. No.37 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

3. The appellant as plaintiff filed the above suit for partition claiming 1/3 share in the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the 2^nd defendant are daughter and son of the 1^st defendant. On 09.01.1986, the suit properties were purchased from one Muthusamy vagaiyara and the same was enjoyed by the plaintiff and defendants along with their father Sundaram @ Muthu Gounder. The suit properties were purchased by selling the ancestral property on 13.03.1985 and the same is mentioned in the sale deed. Since the 1^st defendant and her husband were elderly person of the family, the records stood in their name. While so, on 06.05.2012, the said Muthu Gounder, father of the plaintiff and the 2^nd defendant died and thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendants jointly cultivated the suit properties. Even after the marriage of the plaintiff in the year 1995, she jointly enjoyed the suit properties along with the defendants. No partition took place prior to filing of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the father of the plaintiff and her mother namely the 1^st defendant have executed a settlement deed dated 23.09.2010 in favour of the 2^nd defendant with an intention to defraud the plaintiff. Since the defendants were attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties, she was constrained to file the above suit for partition.

4. Per contra, the defendants would submit that, on 13.03.1985, the father of the plaintiff sold his self acquired property and purchased the suit properties on 09.01.1986. Further the 1^st defendant by utilizing the money given to her at the time of marriage, purchased a portion of the suit properties on 09.01.1986 and therefore, the above properties are the self acquired properties of the 1^st defendant. On 23.09.2010, the 1^st defendant along with her husband, executed a settlement deed in favour of their son namely the 2^nd defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit properties and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the first appellate court.

6. Aggrieved by this, the present Second Appeal is preferred by the Plaintiff.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that, the suit properties were purchased by her father Muthu Gounder and her mother namely the 1^st defendant by selling the ancestral property, which her father Muthu Gounder had got through a partition deed and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get a share as per the amended Hindu Succession Act , 2005. While so, the courts below erred in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act , 2005, since the properties sold for purchasing the suit properties are the self acquired properties of Muthu Gounder. The recitals found in Ex.A1 sale deed dated 13.03.1985, would clearly show that the properties are ancestral properties of Muthu Gounder. Therefore, the settlement deed executed by Muthu Gounder in favour of the 2^nd defendant under Ex.A6 is n