Daughters have equal rights as coparceners in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act as amended in 2005, affecting share distribution in partition cases.

JUDGMENT :

V. Srinivas, J.

This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the decree and judgment dated 26.09.2001 in O.S.No.10 of 2000 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties and in the amount deposited to the credit of L.A.O.P.Nos.12, 13 and 14 of 2000 on the file of the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Rajam.

5. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to narrate the pleadings pleaded by the parties.

6. As per the averments made in the plaint, the brief case of the plaintiff, is as follows :

(i) Initially, the plaintiff filed the suit against defendant Nos.1 and 2 and later defendants Nos.3 and 4 were added as parties. The plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 4 are the daughters and the 3rd defendant is the sister of the 1st defendant. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the 1st defendant. The marriage of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 4 took place in 1991, 1993 and 1978 respectively. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant became coparceners of the joint family by virtue of Section 29-A of the Hindu Succession Act as the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant were unmarried by the date of Act 2 of 1986 of A.P.

(ii) As the defendants have been trying to alienate the suit schedule properties behind back of the plaintiff, the plaintiff gave a registered notice on 25.06.1999 to the 1st defendant demanding him for partition of the joint family properties. The 1st defendant gave a reply on 25.07.1999 with false allegations. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the Land Acquisition Officer deposited total amount of Rs.2,81,898/- in L.A.O.P.Nos.12, 13 and 14 of 2000. As defendants refused to partition the suit properties, the plaintiff laid the suit.

7. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 remained ex parte before the trial Court. The 1st defendant with adoption memo of the 2nd defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and further stating as follows :

(i) The plaint schedule is incorrect. One Bevara Tavitinaidu and Bevara Kannamanayuralu, who are father and mother of the 1st defendant acquired some properties. The 1st defendant also acquired some properties. The properties of the parents of the 1st defendant devolved upon him and his sister. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share in the properties of his father and mother.

(ii) The 1st defendant gave gold ornaments, other movables worth of Rs.1,00,000/- and dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage. The plaintiff orally relinquished her claim in the family properties. If a daughter acquires a right in joint family properties, her marriage expenses will be a liability on her. As the 1st defendant spent nearly about Rs.1,50,000/- towards customary rights at the time of her marriage, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any share. The plaintiff and her husband along with her sister, Uttaramma(4th defendant) and her husband were opposed the