S. SUJATHA, J.

1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal arises against the judgment and decree of the Fast Track Addl. M.A.C.T. Dharwad in R.A. No. 33/2013 (‘the lower appellate court’ for short), whereby the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad (‘the trial court’ for short) in O.S. No. 351/2005.

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

4. Facts in brief are that, plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession in suit schedule property ‘A’ and ‘B’, against the defendants in O.S. No. 351/2005. Suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed holding that plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/5th share each in suit properties. Being aggrieved, the defendant No. 1 preferred appeal before lower appellate Court in R.A. No. 33/2013. The lower appellate court partly allowed the appeal, holding that 4 acres of land, which is sold by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 together to defendants No. 4 and 5 and with regard to declaration that sale transaction of said 4 acres of land is not binding upon the share of plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3, as held by the trial court is not proper and thus gave a finding that plaintiff No. 2 and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to get 1/5th share each in all the suit properties except in 4 acres of land in R.S. No. 53 of Jogeyallapur village, which has already been sold by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 together to defendants No. 4 and 5. Being aggrieved, defendant No. 1 is in appeal.

5. Learned counsel Sri Avinash Banakar appearing for the defendant No. 1/appellant would submit that in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short) by Act No. 39 of 2005 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others vs. Phulavati and others, ILR 2015 Kar. 5329, daughters are not entitled to any share in the coparcenery properties since the father Ningappa was not alive when the plaintiff No. 2daughter along plaintiff No. 1 moved for partition before the trial court in the year 2005. Learned counsel submitted that the father Ningappa died on 29.11.1977 and has produced the copy of the Death Certificate of the said Ningappa. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prakash and others (supra), it was submitted that the shares allotted to the daughters requires to be modified.

6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri A.R. Patil appearing for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and Sri M.G. Gadagoli appearing for respondents No. 5 and 6 does not dispute the same.

7. In view of the factual aspects as narrated above, it is clear that plaintiff No. 1, who is none other than the son of deceased Ningappa along with his sister-plaintiff No. 2 instituted suit O.S. No. 351/2005 before the trial court, seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. The only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is, “whether the shares allotted to the parties by the courts below is justifiable in terms of the amendment to Section 6 of the Act by Amendment Act 39 of 2005 w.e.f. 09.09.2005?”

10. The trial court after appreciating the material evidence on record, partly decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 have got 1/5th share each in suit schedule properties and the sale transaction in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5 is binding only on plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 and not binding on plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3 and they are entitled to their respective shares by effecting a partition by metes and bounds holding that daughters are entitled equal share as a coparcener i