The court affirmed that ancestral property remains so despite partition, and daughters are entitled to equal shares under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended.

JUDGMENT :

(C.M. Joshi, J.)

This appeal is filed by defendant No.3 in OS No.5761 of 2004 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22nd November 2008 passed by the learned XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts of the case as averred in the plaint are that, plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 before the trial Court who are respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein, claimed the relief of partition and the separate possession of their 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs which are as below:

a) for revocation of Partition Deed dated 20.06.2003.

b) for partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and to deliver their 1/9th share in the suit schedule property.

c) for separate possession of the plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule property.

d) and grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating or dispossessing the suit schedule property.

e) for grant of such other relief or reliefs, as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

4. Initially, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had filed the suit and later, their sisters who were arrayed as defendant Nos. 5 to 7, got transposed themselves as plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the daughters of defendant No.1 and their deceased father Govindareddy. It is stated that defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, husband of defendant No.4, defendant No.12 and another deceased Suresh Reddy were their brothers; mother of defendant No.8 to 10 Yashodamma, was another sister of the plaintiff. The family pedigree under Govindareddy is depicted as below:

5. It is relevant to note that initially, the suit was filed against defendant Nos.1 to 12 and later defendant Nos.5 to 7 were transposed as the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos. 13 to 22 were impleaded before the trial Court since they were the purchasers of the properties from the brothers of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, contended that their father, late Govindareddy, was allotted the land bearing Sy.No.9/2 measuring 02 acres 27 guntas, situated at Doddanekkundi village, in a partition among his brothers; during his lifetime 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.9/2 was acquired by the Railways; and after the death of Govindareddy, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 12 had succeeded to the property. After death of Govindareddy, defendant No.1 Muniyamma got transferred the Katha (revenue entry) in respect of the said Sy.No.9/2 in her name. Later, 28 guntas of land in the said land was acquired by the Government for formation of the ring road. Therefore, only 01 acre, 27 guntas of land was available to them, as described at item No.1 in the schedule to the plaint. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have received a compensation amount of Rs.4,20,826/- which was awarded for the acquisition of 28 guntas by the Government and the plaintiffs are also entitled for share in the same. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 to 7 colluding with each other have entered into a partition in the suit schedule properties among themselves under a registered partition deed dated 20-06-2003. In the said partition, the plaintiffs were excluded and therefore, the said partition is not binding on them.

6. Later, when defendant Nos.5 to 7 were transposed as plaintiffs, it appears that they have also acceded to the said contention. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that after effecting the partition in the suit schedule properties, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have formed revenue sites in portions allotted to their share and sold the same to different people. Though the defendants were requested to effect partition and give share to plaintiffs, they failed and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and legitimate share. Inter alia, the plaintiffs also contended that the suit sched