The main legal point established in the judgment is that the alienation of coparcenary property in violation of a court order is not valid, and properties given in lieu of arrears of maintenance cannot be equated with the share in the properties.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The respondents/plaintiffs in this appeal had to wait for 16 years for the final hearing and a verdict. The preliminary decree for partition in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.12/1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur, is contested by the defendants. 28 years have elapsed since the claim for partition is made by the daughter and the wife of Suresh Kalledevar.

2. From the factual and legal perspective, the case did not pose much difficulties. The questions of law, raised in the appeal are already well settled. However, the time taken for this case to be listed for a final hearing is indeed a matter of concern for all the stakeholders in the system. Sixteen years is an unreasonably long period to decide the appeal. Something needs to be done on priority. The problem on hand is not without a solution. This court felt it necessary to discuss the situation in this judgment, after deciding the case on its merits.

3. Kannappa, the propositus, had two wives. Shantavva is the first wife. Thirakavva is the second wife. The second marriage to Thirakavva is void as the first marriage was subsisting. Ratnavva and Laxmavva are the daughters of first marriage. Roopa is the daughter of second marriage.

4. First wife Shantavva and her daughter Ratnavva, claimed partition. Kannappa, Thirakavva the second wife, and Roopa, the daughter of the second wife contested the suit.

5. During the pendency of the suit, Laxmavva, the daughter of the first wife is also impleaded after the death of defendant No.1, Kannappa.

6. Apart from the above-named persons Kannappa's brother's heirs were also impleaded as certain properties were jointly owned by Kannappa and his brother.

7. The suit is decreed in part. The trial court held two daughters from the first marriage, the daughter from the second marriage, and the first wife, all entitled to 1/4th share each.

8. Among the defendants, the second wife and her daughter are in appeal in RFA No.1609/2007. The plaintiffs have filed RFA CROB No.101/2008 claiming more shares.

9. The suit was filed on 28/1/1995, before the commencement of the Act of 39 of 2005, amending Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Act').

10. Sri.Vivek Mehta learned counsel for the appellants submits the daughter/plaintiff no.1 had no right over the properties in the year 1995, held by Kannappa, and as the suit is filed when her father was alive, the suit is not maintainable.

11. Sri. Mehta also urged that during the pendency of the suit i.e. on 18/2/2003, defendant No.1, gifted suit properties in favour of his daughter Roopa from the second marriage. Hence the properties alienated before 20/12/2004, the cut-off date under the Act are not available for partition.

12. Sri. Mehta would further contend that the first defendant no1 had transferred certain properties in favour of the plaintiffs before filing the suit, as such, the suit without including those properties is not maintainable. In the alternative, he would contend that those properties are to be treated as properties allotted to plaintiffs' share and consequently the suit ought to have been dismissed.

13. Sri. Sanjay Katageri, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the cross objectors would submit under Sec. 6 of Act, 2005, the daughter is given the status of a coparcener. Assuming that plaintiff No.1 had no cause of action to file suit in the year 1995, as the amendment of Sec. 6 of Act, 2005 is held to be retrospective in operation, it must be deemed that the daughter had a share in the properties when the suit was filed in 1995.

14. He would further submit that defendants 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim the benefit of alienation made on 18/2/2003, as the said alienations violate the interim prohibitory order passed by the Court which was in force as on the date of the execution of the alleged gift deeds. It is contended that the alienations are invalid and cannot be construed as a valid alienation of the properties befor