A daughter is a coparcener by birth under Hindu law, gaining equal property rights regardless of her father's status, establishing a foundation for equal partition claims.

JUDGMENT :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. The appellant is the third defendant in the suit. He assails the judgment and decree of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Ponneri, in O.S. No. 34 of 2010 dated 18.01.2021.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 and 2 are the children of one late Ramachandra Naidu. The 5^th defendant is the daughter of the first defendant, the granddaughter of Ramachandra Naidu. She was arrayed as a party, as the first defendant had executed a settlement deed in her favour. The 4^th plaintiff and the 3^rd defendant are the purchasers of the suit schedule property from the plaintiffs, and the fifth defendant, respectively.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is that there existed a coparcenary between Ramachandra Naidu and his three sons, plaintiffs 1 to 3. Ramachandra Naidu had acquired several movable and immovable properties by way of survivorship, as well as through deeds of settlement. Ramachandra Naidu died intestate on 29.05.1982, leaving behind plaintiffs 1 to 3, defendants 1 and 2 and his wife, one Jeevarathinam Ammal, as his legal heirs. On the death of Ramachandra Naidu, the plaintiffs claimed that their father’s 1/24th share in the coparcenary devolved on his legal heirs. Jeevarathinam Ammal passed away intestate on 17.10.1989, leaving the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 and 2 as her heirs. Hence, her share in the suit property also devolved equally amongst her children.

5. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants 1 and 2, being female members, had been residing with their respective families away from the suit village. The first defendant, in order to settle the matter amicably, received a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in full quit of her claim over the properties. However, the first defendant Anusuya claimed that she was allotted the suit properties by way of a Koorchit entered into between the parties soon after the death of Ramachandra Naidu on 27.02.1987. On the strength of the Koorchit, she executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter, Haripriya, on 05.04.2007. In turn, Haripriya, sold the property to the third defendant by way of a registered sale deed dated 11.01.2010. The plaintiffs denied the execution of the Koorchit and urged that, even if one such document existed, it was a rank forgery. Since the first defendant had chosen to deal with the property, they impleaded the purchaser as the third defendant.

6. The plaintiffs further urged that they had alienated the property in favour of the fourth plaintiff by way of two registered sale deeds dated 12.12.2007 and 24.03.2008. The fourth plaintiff urged that under the strength of the sale deed, he had also taken possession of the property and has been in enjoyment thereof. Since the demands of the first defendant and the third defendant were unlawful and it was not possible for them to continue in possession of the suit property jointly, they came forth with the suit seeking the following reliefs:

a) for preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 108/120^th share of suit properties

b) to pass a final decree by appointing an advocate/commissioner to divide the suit properties by metes and bounds as per the preliminary decree, all the plaintiffs share so divided and to put the plaintiffs in possession of properties so allotted through court and to deliver the schedule “A” of suit properties to the fourth plaintiff in equity.

c) for a permanent injunction restraining the third defendant his men, agents and servants from doing any act of waste in the suit properti