The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for reconsideration of the appellant's share entitlement in the suit schedule properties in light of a subsequent judgment of the Apex Court.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This appeal by the petitioner-plaintiff in FDP No.32/2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga (for short "the Trial Court") is directed against the impugned order dtd. 29/2/2020 passed by the Trial Court allowing the said final decree proceedings filed by the petitioner-plaintiff.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the appellantpetitioner-plaintiff had instituted the aforesaid final decree proceedings in FDP No.32/2012 to enforce and implement the judgment and decree dtd. 12/12/2003 in O.S.No.113/1994 passed by the Trial Court. As per the judgment and decree, the appellant-plaintiff-petitioner was declared as being entitled to 1/15th share in the suit schedule properties. However, as per the modified judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.106/2008 by the First Appellate Court, the appellant-plaintiff-petitioner was declared to be entitled to 1/12th share in the suit schedule properties. Pursuant to the aforesaid preliminary decree, the appellant-petitioner-plaintiff instituted the instant final decree proceedings, which were allowed by the Trial Court by passing the impugned order. Aggrieved by the final decree passed by the Trial Court directing division of the property by restricting it to 1/12th share in the suit schedule property in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, the appellant plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

4. It is the grievance of the appellant that during the pendency of the appeal, in view of the judgment and of the Apex Court, in case of Vineeta Shrma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717, the share of the appellant-plaintiff deserves to be enhanced from 1/12th to 1/4th in terms of the said position of law and consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court proceeding on the basis that the appellant would be entitled to only 1/12th share in the suit schedule properties deserves to be set aside and the appellant be entitled to 1/4th share in the properties.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in addition to supporting the impugned order passed by the Trial Court as well as the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court, would submit that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra) will not be applicable in so far as the appellant-plaintiff is concerned, particularly when she was born prior to 17/6/1956, when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short "the said Act of 1956") came into force and the Sec. 6 of the said Act having been held to be prospective in the case of Eramma Vs. Veerupana and Ors. reported in AIR 1966 SC 1879, the question of applying the ratio of the judgment in Vineeta sharma's case (supra) to the present case does not arise and consequently, the impugned order does not warrant interference in the present appeal.

6. My attention is also invited to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H.P. Chikkarama Reddy and Anr. Vs. Smt. Kanthamma and Ors - ILR 2021 KAR 613, wherein it is held that the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case (supra), will not apply to daughters born prior to 17/6/1956. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims as regards the alleged share of the appellant-plaintiff in the suit schedule properties, in the light of the undisputed fact that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court was dtd. 29/2/2020 prior to the judgment of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case (supra), which was rendered on 11/8/2020, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit th