Judgment : Per K. KANNAN, J. The appellants/plaintiffs who filed a suit for partition of the suit property into 24 equal shares and allot five shares to them on the ground that they have relinquished the share of the father in the presence of Panchayathar under Exhibit B-4 dated 25. 1967 and therefore, the plaintiffs had no successor to claim the right of partition. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs had preferred the appeal. 2. The joint character of the property is not in dispute. The relationship between the parties is also not in dispute. Mr. Gopalakrishna Naidu had two wives viz. Kanagammal and Saraswathy. Through his first wife, he had a son Govindarajulu Naidu and daughter Govindammal, who is the second defendant. Govindarajulu Naidu died leaving behind his legal heirs who are defendants 3 to 6. Saraswathy, the second wife had five daughters who are the plaintiffs and one son who is the first defendant. They made a claim to share the property on the basis that their father at a notational partition on his death was entitled to an undivided 1/3rd share. The remaining property would go to two of his sons equally and on Gopalakrishnan’s death, as per Section 8 of the Indian Succession Act, each of them was entitled to 1/24th share and together to a 5/24th share. 3. The claim is denied by the defendants with reference to a receipt issued by the plaintiffs on 25. 1967 under the terms of which they had received Rs. 115/- each, as per the verdict of village public. This document weighed with the trial Court to come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs argued that the said document was only a receipt for compensation amount, which had been received by the father of the first defendant for acquisition of one of the items of the property by the Government and it did not operate to forfeit the interest of immovable property. He would also contend that the said properties are valuable immovable properties, worth well over Rs. 100/-and any release of right over such property could be only through a registered document under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The document could not operate to constitute a extinguishment of interest in respect of immovable property. 5. Mr. He would also contend that the said properties are valuable immovable properties, worth well over Rs. 100/-and any release of right over such property could be only through a registered document under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The document could not operate to constitute a extinguishment of interest in respect of immovable property. 5. Mr. M.V. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants relied on judgment in Valliammal v. Muniappan (2008) 6 MLJ 964 : (2008) 4 CTC 773 that the amendment Act 39 of 2005 to Indian Succession Act was prospective in nature and the suit having been filed by the plaintiffs for share in the coparcenary property are not entitled to stake their claims on the ground that the suit had been instituted and the succession operated even prior to coming into vogue of the Amendment Act 39 of 2005. 6. In my view, the reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court referred to above, is not correct since the case concerned was relating to the claim over the property as coparcener and such a claim was being repelled by reasoning of the Court that the Act is prospective in nature and consequently, a claim by the daughter for equal share as that of the son as deemed coparcener was not available. 7. In this case, the contention of the appellants/plaintiffs is that the daughters are not claiming that they are deemed coparceners. On the other hand, their claim is only on the basis of succession to their father’s estate. In relation to joint family property, Indian Succession Act still makes it clear that before Amendment Act 39 of 2005, Section 6 contained a provision that in relation to joint family property, the property would go by survivorship and not by successor. The exception admissible under the Section is, if there was a female member in the family, the property would not go by survivorship but by succession. When there is a daughter and male member, a notional partition has to be worked by creating a fiction that the father had partitioned with other coparceners just before his death and the share assigned to the father on such partition will fall to be divided on succession amongst all heirs. The son and daughters would claim their fathers 1/3rd share. In such a reckoning, the daughters would be entitled to 5/24th share. The son and daughters would claim their fathers 1/3rd share. In such a reckoning, the daughters would be entitled to 5/24th share. It came to be rejected by the trial Court accepting that there had been a release in respect of immovable property. I have already observed that Exhibit B4 cannot operate to create release of right in immovable property through an unregistered instrument, and the plaintiffs could not have been non suited in the manner done by the trial Court. 8. In these circumstances, I set aside the order dated 19. 1994 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in O.S. No. 335 of 1988 and decree the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. However, there is no direction as to costs.