The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are sisters and their father's name is Gurusamy Naicker. The suit property and some other properties are originally belonged to the said Gurusamy Naicker and his two brothers namely Kandasamy Naicker and Krishnasamy Naicker and prior to 40 years a partition has been effected amongst three brothers, wherein the suit property has been allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The first defendant has been given in marriage in the year 1980 and the second defendant has got married in the year 1984. The marriage of the plaintiff has been performed on 08.09.2002. The suit property is a joint family property of the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and their father, wherein the plaintiff is having half share as per the provisions of amendment made in the Hindu Succession Act. The father of the plaintiff without
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1990). It is an admitted fact that the said Act has come into effect on 25.03.1989. As per Section 29-A of the said Act, daughters who remain unmarried as on 25.03.1989 (date of giving effect to the Amending Act 1 of 1990) are entitled to get shares as that of sons in Hindu Joint family properties.
16. In order to repel the contentions put forth on the side of the appellants/defendants 3 and 4, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff has befittingly contended that Section 29-A has been introduced in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by the State Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein right of shares has been given to unmarried daughters equallant to that of sons in Hindu Joint family and the same has come into effect on 25.03.1989 and therefore, (Amendment) Act, 2005 introduced by the Union Government
year 2005, wherein certain exceptions have been given to the effect that the provisions of (Amendment) Act, 2005 are not applicable to a partition which has been effected before 20th day of December, 2004. 20. As per Article 254(2) of the Indian Constitution, as pointed out earlier, if any law has been made by a State Government with regard to matters enumerated in Concurrent List and President of India has given his consent, the same would prevail over the subsequent laws enacted by the Union Government. 21. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court to the following decisions: (a) In (2004) 3 M.L.J 620 (Alamelu Ammal and others V. Tamizh Chelvi and others), this Court has held that "Section 29-A of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is applicable to an unmarried daughter of Hindu co-parcener." (b) In 2006 (3) CTC 491 (Nangammal and others V. N.Desiyappan), the very same view has been reiterated. Therefore, it is pellucid that even after Amendment made in the year 2005 by the Union Government in Section 6 of the said Act, section 29-A introduced