Married daughters are entitled to a share in joint family properties, and their marital status does not negate their legal rights to inheritance as established by the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. Kamal, J.

1. These two appeals are filed by defendant No.2, being aggrieved by the common judgement and decree dated 23^rd December 2020 passed in R.A. Nos.30 of 2014 and 31 of 2024, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada, Karwar (for short “the First Appellate Court”), by which the First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal in R.A. No.30 of 2014 filed by the defendants and dismissing the appeal in R.A. No.31 of 2014 filed by the appellant herein, modified the judgement and decree dated 26^th July 2014 passed in O.S. No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karwar (for short “the trial Court”) by declaring the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 2 & 6 and 7 to 9 together being entitled to 1/8^th share in all the suit schedule properties.

2. The above suit in O.S. No.20/2010 is filed by the plaintiff, namely Shalini, against the defendants seeking partition and separate possession of 11 items of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Babi Naik was the owner in possession of the suit schedule properties. He was married to one Seetabai. The said Babi Naik passed away on 12.01.1977, leaving behind his wife Seetabai and his two sons namely Sadananda (defendant No.1) and Suresh (defendant No.2) and six daughters namely Susheela (defendant No.3), Jyotsna (defendant No.4), Prema (defendant No.5), a predeceased daughter by name Nalini, Shalini (plaintiff), and Vaishali (defendant No.6). The children of the predeceased daughter Nalini are arrayed as defendant Nos.7, 8 and 9.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that she had requested for partition and separate possession of her share, suspecting the bona fides of defendant Nos.1 and 2 regarding the misuse of the family properties. Since her request was not accepted, she filed the suit for partition, seeking her 1/8^th share.

4. Defendant Nos.1 filed his written statement admitting the share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 9 also filed the written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement which was adopted by defendant No.7.

5. In his written statement, defendant No.2 contended that the plaintiff is not a coparcener and, is not entitled to any share in the joint family properties. He claimed that the joint family consists only of defendant Nos.1 and 2, who were taking care of their parents. Defendant No.1 has been residing in Bombay for about 50 years and was engaged in business. He claimed to have spent his own funds to acquire suit schedule properties at Sl.Nos.5 to 11 and towards the Court expenses. He also stated that he borne the expenses for constructing a building and conducting the marriage of his sisters, without any financial contribution from other family members. He further contended that, according to the family tradition, the family properties cannot be psrtitioned, and therefore, he sought dismissal of the suit.

6. Defendant No.2 filed an additional written statement contending that the father of the parties passed away on 12.01.1977, all the legal heirs of the deceased father gav