D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J : The Plaintiff in O.S.No. 12/1992 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Belgaum is the appellant in this regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being not fully satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006, wherein the plaintiff has met with partial success.

2. The appeal is for achieving the decree in terms of the prayer in the plaint. As things would have it, fortunes of the plaintiff have only brightened with the intervening law, particularly the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in terms of the amendment Act No. 39/2005, which has been brought into effect from 09.09.2005 which governs the field and is applicable to the facts of the present case also and which has ensured the status of a coparcenar in a coparcenary property in favour of the plaintiff, a member of a Hindu joint family, a daughter who had been married for considerable number of properties comprised in as many as seven schedules and Schedule-A comprising 12 items, Schedule-B comprising 6 items, Schedule-C comprising 4 items, Schedule- D comprising 6 items, Schedule-E comprising 4 items, Schedule-F comprising 3 items and Schedule-G comprising gold ornaments, silver utensils etc.

4. The schedules are arranged having regard to the common factor existing in the properties figuring in each, of the schedule, with Schedule-A comprising of house properties, Schedule-B comprising agricultural lands, Schedule-C comprising of vacant sites, Schedule-D comprising of movables such as shares and bank deposits, Schedule-E comprising of industrial concerns of the family, Schedule-F comprising of the trading concerns of the family and Schedule-G comprising of gold jewels, silver articles and other movables belonging to the family.

5. Learned Judge of the Trial Court opined that the properties were not liable to be shared equally by the plaintiffs and defendants, mainly comprising of brothers, sisters and the wife and children of the deceased elder brother in the family. .

6. For a good measure a few more defendants who were not immediate members of the family, such as defendant No. 16 Sri Surendra B. Upadhye who was not a member of the family of the father of the plaintiff, but is a cousin and was a partner in a family run industry known as M/s. Yeshwanth Metal Industries and defendants-19 and 20 who were also outsiders to the family but who figure as partners in a trading concern of the family viz., M/s. Yeshwanth Traders, had also been arrayed as defendants. This would completes the array of parties.

7. The suit was on the premise that the plaintiff and defendants-1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are the surviving children of one Yeshwanth Chandrakant Upadhye and so also his eldest son Annasaheb Yeshwanth Upadhye who had died by the time the suit was filed, but was survived by his widow Smt. Vasanthi impleaded as 4th defendant and their children impleaded as defendants- 5, 6 and 7 and the two sons of the 1st defendant Mahaveer and Prithviraj also having been added as defendants-2 and 3, for-the reason that some of the joint family properties stood in their names but are the properties of the family.

8. It is the case of the plaintiff that the entire suit schedule properties were acquired by her father Yeshwanth Chandrakant Upadhyre on the demise of his adopted mother Smt. Sunanda Bai. That Smt. Sunanda Bai was a member of the Hindu joint family which owned a good number of properties, that the family was hit by a catastrophe and in the plague epidemic that attacked the village not only her husband Chandrakant Upadhye but even many of his siblings had also perished and to continue the family traditions and the lineage, Smt. Sunanda Bai had adopted the father of the plaintiff as a son and therefore the father of the plaintiff having become a member of the family, his children have become entitled to the joint family properties in equal measure. The mother of plaintiff and the husband