ORDER 1. THE CHALLENGE IN THIS APPEAL IS TO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IN REGARD TO THE INHERITANCE OF THE PROPERTIES IN RESPECT WHEREOF THE SUIT, OUT OF WHICH THIS APPEAL HAS ARISEN, WAS FILED BY RESPONDENT I, SON OF NATARAJAN CHETTIAR. IN THE ORIGINAL SUIT, NATARAJAN CHETTIAR WAS DEFENDANT 1. HOWEVER, HE DIED ON 3-8-1988. THE SUIT FOR PARTITION HAD BEEN FILED BY RESPONDENT 1 BEING THE SON OF NATARAJAN CHETTIAR FROM HIS SECOND WIFE. THE OTHER SON FROM THE FIRST WIFE WAS SUPPORTING HIS SISTERS. NATARAJAN CHETTIAR HAD, BESIDES TWO SONS AND THREE DAUGHTERS FROM THE SECOND WIFE, ONE DAUGHTER AND ONE SON FROM THE FIRST WIFE. ALL THE THREE DAUGHTERS FROM THE SECOND WIFE ARE MARRIED. TWO OF THE DAUGHTERS WERE, ADMITTEDLY, MARRIED PRIOR TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION (TAMIL NADU AMENDMENT) ACT, 1989. THE SAID ACT CAME INTO FORCE ON 25-3-1989. IN RESPECT OF EVEN THE THIRD DAUGHTER, NAMELY, DEFENDANT 5 IN THE SUIT, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT SHE WAS UNMARRIED AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT ACT. THE MAIN CONTROVERSY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS REGARDING THE RIGHT OF INHERITANCE OF THE DAUGHTERS. THE DAUGHTERS OTHER THAN DEFENDANT 7, LOOKING TO THE MATTER FROM ANY ANGLE, HAD NO RIGHT. 2. INSOFAR AS DEFENDANT 7 BEING CRIPPLED AND UNMARRIED DAUGHTER OF NATARAJAN CHETTIAR IS CONCERNED, THE TWO SETTLEMENT DEEDS EXT. B-5 AND EXT. B-12 WERE IN HER FAVOUR. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND HAVING REGARD TO THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION, WE SEE NO GROUND WHY THE SAID DAUGHTER SHOULD HAVE ONLY LIFE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES COVERED BY THE TWO DEEDS VIZ. EXT. B-5 AND EXT. B-12. IT IS EVIDENT THAT HER LIFE INTEREST WOULD GET CONVERTED INTO ABSOLUTE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES COVERED BY THE SAID DEEDS. IN THIS VIEW, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL TO THIS LIMITED EXTENT AND MAINTAIN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. 3. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF IN THE ABOVE TERMS. THE PARTIES ARE LEFT TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS.