The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, specifically regarding the entitlement of daughters to coparcenary rights based on their date of birth.

RAVI MALIMATH, J.—The 1st plaintiff is the wife of late Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda. The 2nd plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are the daughters of late Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda. The 1st defendant is the son and the 2nd defendant is the daughter-in-law of late Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda. He had three daughters and two sons. The 2nd plaintiff was born to 1st plaintiff through Chikkamogegowda. Jayamma, the 4th defendant was delivered by the 1st wife of Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda. The 1st defendant, husband of the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant are born through 2nd wife of late Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda. The defendants 3 and 4 were married long back and they lived alongwith their husbands but the 3rddefendant Chandramma is now residing at Doddamalur leaving her husband. The marriages of all the defendants were celebrated by late Chikkamogegowda. However, the marriage of the 1st plaintiff was not performed. After the marriage of 1st and 2nd defendants, some misunderstandings arose between the plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd defendants and thereby, the defendants 1 and 2 alongwith Prabhudev started to live separately. However, the plaintiffs and Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda lived together.

2. During 1991 late Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda divided the landed properties, i.e., the suit schedule properties. However, the defendant No. 1 and the husband of the 2nd defendant were not satisfied with the said division. Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda died in the year 1992 and during January 1994, the husband of the 2nd defendant also died. After their death all the family members are enjoying the properties and in possession residing separately, though the partition did not take place by metes and bounds. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 1/1996 for bare injunction. The suit was dismissed. However, in the said suit, the defendants 1 and 2 have taken the defence that there is no division in the family and the schedule properties are in joint possession by accepting the right of the plaintiffs and denying the separate individual possession of the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the same, the defendants did not come forward to partition the properties in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, they filed the present suit seeking partition of the suit schedule properties for their separate shares and other consequential reliefs.

3. The defendants denied the plaint averments. The 1st defendant contended that the plaintiffs never resided with the defendants since their birth. Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties without any interruption by any body much less the plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff kept the mistress and she is not the legally wedded wife of late Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda. She intentionally wants to grab the property of late Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda and has filed the false suit. In the absence of any relationship, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties.

4. The trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that 1st plaintiff is the wife of late Chikkamogegowda @ Chikkegowda and the 2nd plaintiff is his daughter?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 7/18th share in the suit schedule properties?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mesne profit as prayed for?

(5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as prayed them?

(6) To what order and decree?

The issues were answered as follows:

1. Affirmative

2. Affirmative

3. Affirmative

4. Negative

5. Affirmative

6. As per final order

5. The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and 11 documents were marked on her behalf. The 1st defendant was examined as DW-1 alongwith three other witnesses and Ex.D1 was marked on their behalf.

6. On contest, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by holding that