Legal heirs, including daughters, are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties, as affirmed by recent Supreme Court precedent.

JUDGMENT :

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.

This appeal is filed by appellants –defendants Nos.1 to 8 praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2019 passed in RA No.56/2012 by First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (hereinafter referred to as “first appellate Court” for brevity) and judgment and decree dated 06.09.2012 passed in O.S.No.3/2008 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC-I, Devadurga and consequently dismiss the suit of plaintiffs.

2. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 have filed suit in O.S.No.3/2008 against defendants Nos.1 to 8 (appellants Nos.1 to 8) for relief of partition and separate possession of their shares in suit properties. Plaintiffs have contended that plaintiff Nos.1 –Amaramma is wife and plaintiff No.2 – Shivakanthamma @ Shivakanthi is daughter of late Shivanna son of Bheemraya and Smt Gouramma - defendant No.1. The said Shivanna has brother by name Siddanna -defendant No.2 and wife Gundamma -defendant No.3 and five children -defendant Nos.4 to 8. Plaintiffs have contended that Shivanna died leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as legal heirs. Plaintiffs contended that suit scheduled properties are ancestral properties of Shivanna and Siddanna (sons of Bheemaraya and Gouramma).

3. Defendants in their written statement disputed that plaintiffs Nos.1 and 2 are wife and daughter of late Shivanna. Facts admitted are that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. Based on the said pleadings, the trial Court has framed following issues;

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Late. Shivanna and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of said Shivanna and plaintiff No.1 as contended in the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, plaintiffs and defendants constitute Hindu undivided joint family as contended in the plaint?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and liable for partition as contended in the plaint?

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are entitle for 1½ share out of 3 shares as contended in the plaint?

5. Whether the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 prove that Shivanna died as a Bachelor and after his death his share had devolved upon defendant Nos. 1 & 2 as contended in their written statement?”

4. Plaintiff No.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and examined witnesses as P.W.2 to 4 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 15. Defendant No.2 has been examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to D45. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides and appreciating evidence on record has answered issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and issue No.5 in the negative and decreed the suit awarding half share to plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 in the suit schedule properties.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of trial Court, defendants have filed RA No.56/2012 before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court after hearing arguments on both sides has formulated following points for consideration;

1. “Whether the plaintiffs proved that they are wife and daughter of Shivanna?

2. Whether the defendants proved that 1st plaintiff is of the wife Hanumantharaya of Sunnakadal village. Tq. Devadurga and 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of said Hanumantharaya @ Doddanna?

3. What quantum of share, the plaintiffs are entitled for?

4. Whether the trial court appreciated pleas and materials with proper prospective?

5. Whether the plaintiffs deserve leave of this court to produce copies of sale deed executed by 2nd defendant as an additional evidence as prayed in their application?

6