JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the defendant as against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam in O.S.No.210 of 1996. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, in a few broad strokes, could be encapsulated thus: a] The respondents-minors through their mother as guardian filed the suit seeking partition for dividing the four items of the suit properties by metes and bounds and for allotting 1/3 rd share each in favour of the plaintiffs 1,2 and the defendant on the main ground that those properties are the ancestral properties. b) Rift occurred between the parents of the plaintiffs, viz., the defendant-Sridharan and their mother Usharani. Whereupon, the parents are living apart from each other. The minors therefore, seek partition and for allotment of their shares. c) Written statement was filed by the defendant admitting that item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties as the ancestral properties; but disputing the item Nos.3 and 4 as the ancestral properties. According to the defendant, item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties were purchased by the defendant from out of his own earnings and the plaintiffs are having nothing to do with them. c] The trial court framed the relevant issues. d] During trial, on the plaintiffs' side P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On the defendant's side, the defendant examined himself as P.W.1 and no document was marked. e] Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and accordingly, preliminary decree was passed. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and preliminary decree of the trial court, the defendant has preferred this appeal on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would portray and parody, express and expatiate the grounds, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: (i) There is no iota or shred, shard or miniscule, jot or pint of evidence to demonstrate and display that item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties were purchased from and out of the funds provided by Usha Rani's father, so to say, the defendant's father-in-law and also from the income derived out of the joint family property. (ii) By no stretch of imagination, item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties could be stated to be the joint family properties even as per the version of the plaintiffs and in such a case, the trial court was not justified in assuming and presuming things and pass a preliminary decree on mere conjectures and surmises, and for that matter, no decree could be passed in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties as in one breathe, the plaintiffs cannot claim share and in another breathe disown their liability to share the debts incurred by the defendant. Accordingly, she would pray for the dismissal of the suit after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. 6. In a bid to torpedo and extirpate the arguments as put forth on the side of the appellant/defendant, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would pyramid his argument, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) The trial court taking into account the pros and cons of the matter held that each of the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/3 rd share in the joint family properties of item Nos.1 to 4. (ii) The defendant's contention that for the alleged debts incurred by him in connection with his business should be borne by the plaintiffs also is neither here nor there. (iii) There is nothing to indicate that debts were incurred for maintaining the joint family and in such a case, the question of sharing the debts by the minors would not arise. In fact a partition emerged between the defendant and his brother and in that only the first and second items of the suit properties were allotted to the share of the defendant. Wherefore, there is nothing to interfere with the judgment and the decree of the trial court. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the appeal. 7. The points for consideration are as under: 1. Whether the plaintiffs, who are admittedly the children of the defendant and Usha Rani should be treated as co-parceners along with their father Sridharan in respect of all the four items of the suit properties? 2. Whether item Nos. Accordingly, he would pray for the dismissal of the appeal. 7. The points for consideration are as under: 1. Whether the plaintiffs, who are admittedly the children of the defendant and Usha Rani should be treated as co-parceners along with their father Sridharan in respect of all the four items of the suit properties? 2. Whether item Nos. 3 and 4 of the suit properties, which are purported to have been as per the plaintiff's version purchased by the defendant from and out of the funds provided by Usha Rani's father and from the income of the joint family properties, could be treated as the joint family property susceptible to partition among the plaintiffs and the defendant? 3. Whether any joint family debt has been established by the defendant for being shared by the plaintiffs also along with the defendant? 4. Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in dividing all the four items of the suit properties into three shares and allotting one share each in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendant? Point No.1: 8. In view of the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1990 and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 the daughter in a co-parcenery family is treated as a co-parcener. In view of the aforesaid amendments and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2011 (9) SCC 788 [Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another vs. Chakiri Yanadi and another] and certain excerpts from it would run thus: "11. The new Section 6 provides for parity of rights in the co-parcenary property among male and female members of a joint Hindu family on and from 9.9.2005. The legislature has now conferred substantive right in favour of the daughters. According to the new Section 6, the daughter of a co-parcener becomes a co-parcener by birth in her own rights and liabilities in the same manner as the son. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the co-parcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son in unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus on and from 9.9.2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a co-parcener as if she had been a son. 12. The declaration in Section 6 that the daughter of the co-parcener shall have same rights and liabilities in the coparcenary property as she would have been a son in unambiguous and unequivocal. Thus on and from 9.9.2005, the daughter is entitled to a share in the ancestral property and is a co-parcener as if she had been a son. 12. The right accrued to a daughter in the property of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, by virtue of the 2005 Amendment Act, is absolute, except in the circumstances provided in the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 6. The excepted categories to which new Section 6 of the 1956 Act is not applicable are two, namely, (i) where the disposition or alienation including any partition has taken place before 20.12.2004; and (ii) where testamentary disposition of property has been made before 20.12.2004. Sub Section (5) of Section 6 leaves no room for doubt as it provides that this section shall not apply to the partition which has been effected before 20.12.2004. For the purposes of new Section 6 it is explained that "partition" means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or partition effected by a decree of a court. In light of a clear provision contained in the Explanation appended to sub-section (5) of Section 6, for determining the non-applicability of the section, what is relevant is to find out whether the partition has been effected before 20.12.2004 by deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or by a decree of a court. In the backdrop of the above legal position with reference to Section 6 brought in the 1956 Act by the 2005 Amendment Act, the question that we have to answer is as to whether the preliminary decree passed by the trial court on 19.03.1999 and amended on 27.09.2003 deprives the appellants of the benefits of the 2005 Amendment Act although final decree for partition has not yet been passed. 13. The legal position is settled that partition of a joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, inter alia, two of these modes are (one) by a registered instrument of a partition and (two) by a decree of the court. 13. The legal position is settled that partition of a joint Hindu family can be effected by various modes, inter alia, two of these modes are (one) by a registered instrument of a partition and (two) by a decree of the court. In the present case, admittedly, the partition has not been effected before 20.12.2004 either by a registered instrument of partition or by a decree of the court. The only stage that has reached in the suit for partition filed by Respondent 1 is the determination of shares vide preliminary decree dated 19.3.1999 which came to be amended on 27.09.2003 and the receipt of the report of the Commissioner. 14. A preliminary decree determines the rights and interests of the parties. The suit for partition is not disposed of by passing of the preliminary decree. It is by a final decree that the immovable property of joint Hindu family is partitioned by metes and bounds. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the suit continues until the final decree is passed. If in the interregnum i.e.after passing of the preliminary decree and before the final decree is passed, the events and supervening circumstances occur necessitating change in shares, there is no impediment for the court to amend the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree re-determining the rights and interests of the parties having regard to the changed situation," there is no doubt about the right of the daughter as a co-parcener to claim share on par with male co-parceners. 9. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that so far final decree has not been passed. Now by virtue of the aforesaid change in the Hindu law, the minor daughter Lakshmi Sri is also to be treated as one of the co-parceners. Accordingly, Point No.1 is decided. Point No.2 10. Avoiding discursive discussion and dilation, I would pithily and precisely set out the incontrovertible and unassailable facts to the effect that even as per the version of the plaintiffs, item Nos.3 and 4 were purchased due to the funds provided by the said Usha Rani's father. If that be so, even by phantasmagorical thoughts, or by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that those item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties are joint family properties. 11. If that be so, even by phantasmagorical thoughts, or by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that those item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties are joint family properties. 11. The trial court miserably failed to take note of the same; but holus bolus simply held as though item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties are also joint family properties even though in the plaint in para No.7 vaguely the plaintiffs would plead as though item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties were purchased from and out of the funds provided by Usha Rani's father and also from out of the family business and income derived from the family properties. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate such a plea. The evidence of P.W.2 as though the defendant was given one lakh rupees by the defendant's father-in-law, in his presence in no way would support the case of the plaintiffs that item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties are joint family properties. There is total absence of evidence to prove that from one of the joint family income item Nos.3 and 4 were purchased by the defendant. The business which defendant carried on and incurred loss, is not proved to be a joint family business. 12. In para Nos.10 to 21 of the judgment of the trial court, no doubt the trial court extensively discussed the evidence of both oral and documentary and held that item Nos.3 and 4 were not joint family properties as they were purchased by the defendant after the partition emerged between himself and his brother; accordingly, the trial court decided Issue No.2. However, in the last portion of para No.27, the trial court observed as follows: “ Tamil” Surprisingly, the lower court held as though at the option of the defendant even item Nos.3 and 4 could be shared by him with the plaintiffs. There is no knowing of the fact that as to how a court could give such a verdict in respect of item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties. 13. The whole kit and caboodle of the facts and figures that stood transpired from the records would exemplify and demonstrate that there is nothing to indicate that from and out of the income derived from item Nos. 13. The whole kit and caboodle of the facts and figures that stood transpired from the records would exemplify and demonstrate that there is nothing to indicate that from and out of the income derived from item Nos. 1 and 2 of the suit properties, the item Nos.3 and 4 were purchased in the name of the defendant. 14. Unassailably and unarguably, after the emergence of Ex.A1, the partition between the defendant, and his brother and others, the defendant started doing business and according to him he incurred loss also. There is no evidence to display and demonstrate that the said business happened to be the joint family business. If at all there was any joint family business that should have got reflected in Ex.A1 itself. The plaintiffs were minors and there could not have been any joint business among the minors and the defendant and absolutely there is no evidence to that effect. 15. In fact, the plaintiffs attempted to project the case as though a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-was given by Usha Rani's father, who is the father-in-law of the defendant for purchasing the item Nos.3 and 4 for running the business and that fact was not proved and even if that be so, it could not be construed as the contribution made by the joint family for the said business concerned. 16. Admittedly, item Nos. 3 and 4 of the suit properties are immovable properties standing in the name of the defendant and in such a case the court cannot assume and presume that those properties also should automatically be treated as joint family properties. There is also nothing to exemplify and indicate that in the said partition, which emerged on 30.08.1993 between the defendant and his brother, the item Nos.3 and 4 were allotted to the share of the defendant. When such is the factual position, the question of the plaintiffs' claiming share over item Nos.3 and 4 of the joint family properties would be a well-neigh impossibility. However, the trial court without adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, simply decreed the suit in respect of item Nos. 3 and 4 of the suit properties also. Point No.2is decided accordingly. Point No.3 17. In respect of sharing of the debts are concerned, in the written statement itself, there is no specific mentioning about it. However, the trial court without adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, simply decreed the suit in respect of item Nos. 3 and 4 of the suit properties also. Point No.2is decided accordingly. Point No.3 17. In respect of sharing of the debts are concerned, in the written statement itself, there is no specific mentioning about it. Simply because in a vague manner, the defendant contended that there are joint family debts, the court cannot assume and presume that the plaintiffs also should share such debts. The plaintiffs are minors, now represented by their mother, who are all living away from the defendant due to the misunderstanding emerged between the defendant and the mother of the minor children. The defendant's oral evidence could only be termed as his ipse dixit, which itself is titchy and patchy. When such is the position, in the absence of any specific evidence that the debts were incurred for maintaining the joint family or the joint family property, the question of calling upon the minors' to share some imaginary debts would be a well-neigh impossibility, which cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, Point No.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the defendant. Point No.4 18. As such, in view of the ratiocination adhered to above, the judgment and decree of the trial court in respect of item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties alone should be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside and the remaining part of the judgment and decree of the trial court in allotting 1/3 rd share each in favour of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties shall remain in tact. The decree shall be accordingly drafted. 19. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.