Daughters have equal rights and shares in ancestral joint family properties under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3 have filed this regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed by the IV Addl. District Judge, Mysuru, in R.A.No.377/2011 reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nanjangud, in O.S.No.17/2009.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them in the court at first instance.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.17/2009 before the Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties and she claimed 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff and defendants are the children of one Madegowda and their mother was Madamma. Madegowda and Madamma had another son by name Moogegowda who had expired unmarried prior to the filing of the suit. The suit schedule properties are their ancestral joint family properties and after the death of Madegowda and his wife Madamma, the khatha in respect of the suit schedule properties were got transferred in the name of defendant no.1. However, the plaintiff and other defendants continued to be in joint possession of the suit schedule properties along with defendant no.1. No partition was effected in the family after the death of Madegowda, and therefore, the plaintiff had requested the defendants to effect partition on 12.12.2008 and since the defendants kept on postponing the same, the plaintiff was constrained to file O.S.No.17/2009 seeking 1/4th share in the ancestral joint family properties left behind by their father.

4. Defendants 2 & 3 who are the sisters of the plaintiff had filed written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff and they had claimed their share in the suit schedule properties and they also admitted that the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties.

5. Defendant no.1 who is the brother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3 had filed written statement contending that the plaintiff and the other defendants are not entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties. It is his case that the plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3 were married daughters of late Madegowda and they are residing separately with their respective husband. It was further contended by defendant no.1 that at the time of marriage of the plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3, huge amount was spent for the purpose of marriage and also for giving gold and other articles to them at the time of marriage. He had further contended that he had improved the suit schedule properties by investing huge amount and the suit schedule properties have been partitioned between himself and his children, and therefore, there is no scope for further partition.

6. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court had framed the following issues:

Issues

7. During the course of trial, the plaintiff in support of her case, got examined her son who was also her general power of attorney holder as PW-1 and two other witnesses were examined as PWs-2 & 3. In support of the plaintiff's case, 12 documents were produced and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-12. On behalf of the defendants, five witnesses were examined as DWs-1 to 5 and 11 documents were produced and marked as Exs.D-1 to D-11. After completion of recording the evidence, the Trial Court heard the arguments of the contesting parties and by its judgment and decree dated 16.06.2011 decreed the suit with costs and held that the plaintiff was entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court ordered for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to hand over 1/4th share to the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant no.1 had filed R.A.No.377/2011 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence availab