The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of daughters to claim partition in coparcenary property under the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as per the legal principles established in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others (AIR 2020 SC 3717).

JUDGMENT :

Since common and akin issues are involved and both the appeals arise against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. 51/07 dated 29.10.2011 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Virajpet, (‘Trial Court’ for short) the same are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

3. The subject matter of these appeals are the properties described in ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No.51/2007 before the Trial Court seeking the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties declaring that the plaintiffs have 1/7th share each in the suit schedule properties; directing the defendants to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs; directing them to pay mesne profits from the date of the suit.

4. Plaint averments are that the plaintiffs are coparceners and members of the joint family of Late H.L.Chikke Gowda @ Chikkaiah, s/o Late Lakkaiah. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 3 are the children of late H.L.Chikke Gowda who died intestate on 16.11.1992, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4. Defendant No.4 is the widow of H.L.Chikke Gowda; defendant No.5 is the purchaser of item No.10 of ‘A’ schedule; defendant No.6 is purchaser of item No.11 of ‘A’ schedule who is the son of defendant No.1. It was contended that ‘A’ schedule properties except 1, 4, 7 and 11 are the properties held by late Chikke Gowda which he got from his ancestors to his share during his life time. Defendants 1 to 4 had no independent income. The income derived from ‘A’ schedule properties was the only source of their livelihood.

5. It was contended that defendant No.1 purchased item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule from out of the income of the joint family property on 7.8.1977; defendant No.2 purchased item Nos. 4 and 7 of ‘A’ schedule on 30.6.1999 and 17.4.1999 respectively from out of the income of joint family property; item No.11 of ‘A’ schedule was allotted by the local authority to defendant No.1, the value of which was paid by defendant No.1 out of the joint family income; Defendant No.5 is said to have purchased item No.10 of ‘A’ schedule property, which was the ancestral property of Late Chikkaiah, on 15.3.2007 being fully aware of the fact that the said property was the ancestral property. It is further stated that defendant No.6, who is the son of defendant No.1, purchased item no.11 of ‘A’ schedule through a registered sale deed dated 23.8.2001 from defendant No.1, knowing fully well that it was a joint family property. It was stated that the sale consideration was paid by defendant no.1 from out of the joint family income.

6. In respect of ‘B’ schedule properties, it was averred that the same were acquired by defendants 1 and 2 out of the joint family income.

7. Plaintiffs contended that they are coparceners and members of the joint family of Late H.L.Chikke Gowda and they are in deemed joint possession of the suit schedule properties having 1/7th share each over the suit schedule properties. Defendants having refused the demand made by the plaintiffs for partition and to deliver 1/7th share to each of them, plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.

8. On service of summons, defendants 1 to 4 and 6 appeared through their respective learned counsel and filed written statement. Defendant No.5 remained absent and hence, he was placed ex parte. A common written statement was filed by defendants 1 to 4 and 6 admitting that item Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 10 were the ancestral properties of Late Chikkaiah, but he had no claim or right on item Nos.1, 4, 7 and 11 and they belong to defendants 1 to 3 in their right, being their self acquisitions. It was contended that item No.11 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.6. The plea of the plaintiffs that item nos. 1, 4, 7 and 11 were purchased out of joint family income was denied. The defence set up was that the said propert