Daughter's right to equal share in ancestral property as coparcener despite marriage before 1990.

The Appellant/Plaintiff, Murugammal, daughter of Venkatesa Naicker by his first wife, filed a suit for partition claiming a 1/5th share in the suit properties against the respondents (the second wife and children of the deceased)

The Plaintiff contended the properties were self-acquired by her father, who died intestate in 1989

The Second Defendant/Respondent contested, asserting the properties were ancestral assets purchased from the income of a joint family nucleus

The Trial Court decreed a 1/5th share for the Plaintiff, viewing the properties as self-acquired

The First Appellate Court modified this to a 1/10th share, concluding the properties were ancestral

The Plaintiff preferred this Second Appeal challenging the characterization of the property and the share allotted

Section 6 (as amended by Act 39 of 2005) and Section 8 regarding intestate succession of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

The precedent set in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, which established that daughters have coparcenary rights by birth regardless of whether the father was alive at the time of the 2005 Amendment

Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates the registration of documents that extinguish interest in immovable property

The Court determined the properties were ancestral because the Plaintiff failed to prove independent income sources (such as a provision store) for Venkatesa Naicker, while evidence showed he held significant ancestral agricultural land producing surplus income used for subsequent acquisitions

Regarding the Plaintiff's share, the Court noted she was a Hindu daughter whose father died in 1989. While she was not entitled to the Tamil Nadu Amendment (Act 1 of 1990) due to her marriage date, the Central Amendment of 2005 applied retrospectively

Applying the Vineeta Sharma doctrine, the Court recognized the Plaintiff as a coparcener. Therefore, the estate was divided into five shares (one for the Plaintiff and four for the children of the second wife as coparceners). Upon the notional death of the father, his 1/5th share devolved equally among his five legal heirs (the Plaintiff, the second wife, and the three children), granting the Plaintiff an additional 1/25th share

The Court rejected the Defendants' reliance on an unregistered release deed (Ex-B.15), holding it inadmissible under the Registration Act and suspicious in timing

The Court affirmed that the properties were ancestral in nature but corrected the legal calculation of shares necessitated by the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. No costs were ordered