The right of a daughter to a share in paternal property as a legitimate heir is reaffirmed, irrespective of marriage status, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

Regular First Appeals in RFA No.4032/2012 is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 and RFA No.4055/2012 filed by defendant No.5 and RFA No.4056/2012 filed by defendant No.4 challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2012 passed in O.S.No.278/2003 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belgaum, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short, thereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition, possession and mesne profit is decreed with effect that the plaintiff is entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule properties. Further, the decree is to the effect that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 dated 18.11.1991, 19.11.1991, 19.11.1991, 19.11.1991, 19.03.1993, 19.03.1993, 16.02.1997 and 08.09.2003 are not binding upon the plaintiff’s legitimate share.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

PLAINT:

3. It is the case of the plaintiff as per averments in the plaint that one Anant Mukund Shanbhag is the original propositus. Defendant No.1 is his wife and plaintiff is the only daughter of Anant Mukund Shanbhag and defendant No.1. Anant Mukund Shanbhag given education and performed marriage of the plaintiff during his lifetime. The propositus Anant Mukund Shanbhag was native of Kumata and in the year 1933-34 had came to Belgaum for livelihood and secured a job as waiter in hotel “Darbar”. In the year 1940-41, he left the said hotel job and invested his earnings and established his own tea-stall at Tilakwadi, Belgaum under the name and style of “Ramanath Ashram” along with his brother Vaikunth Mukund Shanbhag. He earned good amount of money and gave said hotel to his brother Vaikunth Mukund Shanbhag and invested his own savings and started hotel business in a rented premises at R.P.D. Cross, Tilakwadi, Belgaum under the name and style of “New Shanta Niwas” due to his illness he was constrained to run the said business.

4. Out of his earnings, Anant Mukund Shanbhag purchased an open space property bearing R.S.No.201/A through a registered sale deed dated 30.01.1964 and his name was entered in revenue records. The said property is self acquired property of Anant Mukund Shanbhag and he constructed residential blocks from time to time, which are numbered as CTS Nos.923 to 927. Anant Mukund Shanbhag died intestate on 22.09.1980 leaving behind him his wife-defendant No.1 and daughter-plaintiff as his legal heirs.

5. After the death of Anant Mukund Shanbhag, defendant No.1 continued to hold the said suit properties without effecting any partition by metes and bounds. Also, after the death of Anant Mukund Shanbhag, the financial condition of the family was quite good.

6. The plaintiff was surprised to go through a publication in a daily newspaper dated 11.06.2003 and noticed that the property bearing CTS No.924 is scheduled for sale. Upon enquiry, defendant No.1, though she does not have any subsisting right, title and interest exclusively to alienate the suit properties, tried to make alienation of the properties. In this regard, the plaintiff also got published a notice in the daily newspaper "Tarun Bharat” dated 22.09.2003 and brought to the notice of the public that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the joint holders of the said property and no one should make transactions in this regard. However, defendant No.1 to deprive the plaintiff’s legitimate half share in suit properties, in collusion with her sister’s sons namely, V. B. Tinaikar, Radhakrishna V. Shenvi got entered her name alone entered stating that the deceased had no other legal heirs. Defendant No.1 got created sale deeds dated 18.11.1991 and 19.11.1991 for nominal sale consideration in the name of Narahari Bhiku Pai, who is the father of defendant No.2 Sri. Madhusudan Shrinivas Kamat and defendant No.4 got their names entered in the CTS records to the portions of the suit schedule properties. The name of defendant No.5 came to be entered in the city survey recor