The main legal point established in the judgment is that a daughter of a deceased male Hindu is entitled to a share in the property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, irrespective of the circumstances of her birth in relation to the adoption of her father.

( 1 ) AT the stage of admission the respondent is notified. Accordingly she has put in appearance through a Counsel. The records are also obtained. As this appeal can be disposed of on a short point, it is admitted and heard for final disposal and disposed by this judgment.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22-1-1987 passed by the learned Additional civil Judge, Bagalkot in O. S. No. 94 of 1982. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondent was the defendant In this appeal the parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

( 3 ) THE appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that she has got half share in the suit land which is fully described in Schedule-B to the plaint and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land. She has claimed half share in the suit land on the ground that she is the daughter of late Mallappa and the suit land belonged to him The defendant is the widow of the said mallappa being the step mother of the plaintiff. Therefore, she is entitled to half share in the suit land after the death of her father-Mallappa.

( 4 ) THE defendant resisted the suit on various grounds and inter alia contended that the plaintiff having been born prior to the adoption of her father, she does not belong to the adoptive family. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any snare in the suit- B schedule property. She also further contended that the plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit property ; therefore she is not entitled to the declaration and the injunction sought for.

( 5 ) THE trial court, in the light of the pleas raised by the parties, framed the following issues : (1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that she was born on 2-5-1941 i. e. , subsequent to the adoption of her father deceased Mallappa ? (2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that name of the defendant appeared in record of rights as manager of the joint family ? (3) Whether the Plaintiff proves that she is in joint possession of the suit land along with defendant ? (4) Whether the defendant proves that she is in exclusive possession of the suit land since the death of her husband ? (5) Whether the defendant proves that she has also perfected her title to the suit land by adverse possession ? (6) What decree or order ?

( 6 ) ISSUES 1 to 3 and 4 were answered against the plaintiff Issue No 5 was held against the defendant. In the light of the findings recorded on issues 1 to 3 and 4 the suit was dismissed.

( 7 ) THE contention urged before us is that admittedly the plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased Mallappa Who was the owner of the suit land ; that the said Mallappa died after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, leaving behind only the female heirs ; that the plaintiff being a Class-I heir as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act she is entitled to a half share in the suit land because Mallappa died leaving behind only two heirs namely the plaintiff and the defendant. However, Sri A. B. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent disputed the correctness of this contention.

( 8 ) HAVING regard to the contentions urged, the following points arise for consideration :- (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in the suit land ? (2) If so, whether this is a case in which a request for partition and possession of her half share can be acceded to, in the absence of a specific prayer made in the plaint for partition and separate possession of her share? point No. 1

( 9 ) DECEASED Mallappa-the father of the plaintiff was given in adoption on 17-5-1939. The plaintiff claims that she was born on 2-5-1941 subsequent to the adoption. However, the trial court has found,-and we do not consider it necessary to disturb that finding-as that will not have any bearing on the right of the plaintiff,-that the plaintiff was born on 8-10-1937 prior to the adoption. In this case