JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by defendant No.2 challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.25/2017 dated 01.08.2018, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Hungund. Said suit was filed for relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff-Shanthavva is one of the daughters of Magundappa and Channavva. Defendant No.1-Sangappa is brother of defendant No.2-Kalavathi and plaintiff. Both parents of plaintiff-defendants died intestate. Suit properties are their ancestral properties and there is no partition effected between them. When plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession, defendants refused it. Hence, plaintiff filed suit.

3. After service of summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance. Defendant No.1 did not file written statement.

4. Defendant No.2 filed written statement admitting relationship among parties to suit and also admitted that suit properties are ancestral properties. She contended that land bearing Sy.No.54/5 measuring 3 acre 22 guntas, Mugunuru village, Hungund taluk is the ancestral property, which is not included in the suit. Therefore suit is bad for partial partition and sought for allotment of her 1/3rd share in suit properties by metes and bounds.

5. Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following issues for consideration:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that suit properties are ancestral properties of parties to suit?

2. Whether defendant No.2 proves that suit is bad for partial partition?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief sought for?

4. Whether defendant No.2 is entitled to relief sought for in the written statement?

6. In support of their case, plaintiff/respondent No.1 examined herself as PW1 and examined one more witness as PW2 and got marked 6 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of defendant/appellant, defendant No.2 got herself examined as D.W.1 and produced 2 documents marked as Exs.D.1 to D.2.

7. On appreciation, Trial Court answered issues Nos.1, 3 and 4 in affirmative. The Trial Court concluded that issue No.2 was infructuous and proceeded to decree the suit in part, holding that plaintiff and defendant No.2 are entitled to 1/6th share on notional basis referring to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and others Vs. Phulavati and others, AIR 2016 SC 769.

8. Sri. Sangamesh S.Ghulappanavar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the very law laid down in Pulavathi’s case is overruled in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others, (2020) 9 SCC 1, wherein it is held that daughters would be entitled to equal share. In view of the said decision the Trial Court’s judgment would be unsustainable. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has filed I.A. No.2 of 2019 for additional evidence by producing document Nos.1 to 7. learned counsel submits that the said application may be dismissed as not pressed and the appeal itself may be disposed of on merits.

9. Sri. Pavan B.Doddatti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supported the appellant and submitted that appropriate orders may be passed.

10. Sri. C.R.Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposed the appeal and submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was passed by taking into account the law existing as on that date and no interference was called for.

11. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and record. In view of the above submissions, only point for consideration in this appeal is: Whether appellant is entitled for equal share along with respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all suit schedule properties? However, the said point is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma’s case (supra), wherein it is held that a daughter would inherit in equal share as that of a son, and the date of death of the father whether before or after the date of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Su