The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and its applicability to the rights of daughters in coparcenary property. The court clarified that the rights under the amendment Act are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 09.09.2005, and both the daughter and father should be alive on the date of the amendment to get the benefit.

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in RA No.4/2014 dated 24.04.2015 passed by the II Addl. District Judge at Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur), whereby the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 55/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hirekerur is confirmed.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial court.

4. The plaintiffs preferred a suit in OS No. 55/2011 against the defendants seeking partition of the suit schedule properties and separation of the share of the plaintiffs. The plaint averments are that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are the brothers. Defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are the sisters of the plaintiffs, who are all married and settled. The plaintiff is the second son of Late Sri. Channa Basavanagouda and Late Smt. Gowramma. Sri. Channa Basavanagouda died on 27.08.1978 and Smt. Gowramma died on 14.01.2001 intestate. The properties mentioned in Schedule A and B of the plaint are devolved on the plaintiffs and defendants as the coparceners. The properties mentioned in the schedule C of the plaint have been purchased out of the savings from the income of the joint family. Hence, the plaintiffs and all defendants have their share in it. On issuance of summons, defendants have appeared and filed separate written statements. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court decreed the suit. The plaint schedule properties as mentioned in schedule A and B and movables mentioned in the Court Commissioner report are declared as joint family properties. It was held that the plaintiff and defendants are entitled to 1/8 share each in the said suit properties.

5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal in RA No. 4/2014, which came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, this second appeal is preferred by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The following substantial questions of Law arises for consideration:

(a) Whether both the courts below were justified in granting equal share to defendant Nos.3 to 7 by overlooking the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the co-parcenery property?

(b) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below is justifiable in view of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash V/s Phulavati reported in AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 769?

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties do not dispute that the judgment and decree passed by the courts below requires to be modified as regards the shares of the daughters viz., defendant Nos. 3 to 7 in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash V/s Phulavati reported in AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 769. The courts below determined the share of the members of joint family comprising of the plaintiffs and defendants based on the law prevailing at the relevant time i.e., placing reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Pushpalatha N.V. V/s Padma and others relating to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005. Now, the issue relating to the rights of the daughters in coparcenery property based on Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, more particularly, Amendment Act 2005 has reached finality.

9. In the case of Prakash V/s Phulavathi (supra) wherein, it is categorically held that the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 09.09.2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born. Disposition or alienation including partitions which may have taken place before 20-12-2004 as per the law applicable prior to the said date will re