The court affirmed the rights of daughters as coparceners in ancestral properties under amended Hindu Succession Act, allowing them equal shares alongside sons.

JUDGMENT :

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.

RFA No.100182/2017 is filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.366/2014 by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, thereby, the suit filed for partition is decreed.

RFA Crob. No.100009/2024 is filed by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant Nos.10 and 13 (daughters) challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree, so far as not granting equal share as that of sons.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for convenience and easy reference.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:

PLAINT:

Original propositus late Gurappa S/o Basappa Ghodke and his wife late Smt.Malanabai Gurappa Ghodke died intestate leaving behind four sons and six daughters by name Sri Mohan Gurappa Ghodke (defendant No.2), late Sri Devaraj Gurappa Ghodke (father of defendants 6 to 9), Sri Dayanand Gurappa Ghodke (defendant No.3), Sri Rajendra Gurappa Ghodke (defendant No.4), Smt.Kamalabai (defendant No.10), Smt. Kasturibai (defendant No.11), Smt.Kumudini (defendant No.12), Smt.Sadhana (plaintiff No.2), Smt. Vandana (defendant No. 13), Smt. Mangala (plaintiff No. 1) as their legal heirs. The original propositus Gurappa died on 21.11.1992 and his wife Smt. Manlanabai died on 03.07.2008. Item No.1 and 2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties was purchased out of the income derived from the ancestral properties. But those lands are purchased in the name of propositus late Gurappa Basappa Ghodke. Late Gurappa B.Ghodke had no independent income of his own to purchase those properties in his independent capacity. Hence, item No.1 and 2 of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties are the ancestral properties. Plaint ‘B’ schedule property is also the ancestral property. From 1988 till the date of his death i.e., 21.11.1992 the propositus Gurappa Ghodke was bed ridden due to his advance age and his memory power was diminished and hence, he never used to go outside since 1980. During his life time, he had not made any kind of arrangement by way of partition or he had not made alienation of the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 13. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have 2/10^th share, defendant Nos.2 to 4 have 1/10^th share each, defendant Nos.5 to 9 together entitled for 1/10^th share, defendant Nos.10 to 13 have 1/10^th share each in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.3 was the head of the family and he used to cultivate the suit schedule properties with the assistance of joint family members. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.10 to 13 started to reside in their respective marital homes subsequent to their marriage. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 and father of defendant Nos.6 to 9 created a fraudulent sale deed dated 28.04.1999 in favour of defendant No.1 relating to item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. They have no right to sell item No.1 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property to defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have vested with right in the property and they have a definite