Daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property as coparceners under Hindu law, and claims of oral partition require substantial evidence to be accepted.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri M.C.Jayakirthi and Sri V.Vinay Raghavendra, learned counsel for the parties.

2. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.196/2009 on the file of the II Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, are the appellants in RSA No.269/2022. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 in the said suit have preferred RSA No.573/2021.

3. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience.

4. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Second Appeals are as under:

The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the children of defendant No.1-Basamma and late Boregowda. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are the children of defendant No.3- Puttaraju. After the death of Kapanigowda, late Boregowda who is the husband of defendant No.1-Basamma inherited the properties detailed below hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’.

(i) Land bearing Sy No.111 measuring 2 acre 18 guntas (now in Sy No.111/1 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas, and in Sy.No.111/2 measuring 3 guntas) situated at Kalluru Naganahalli village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on:

East by: Land of Yedalli Gowdappa,

West by: Road,

North by: Lands of Yedalli Naganna,

South by: Channel.

(ii) Land bearing Sy.No.15/1, measuring 1 acre 15 guntas situated at Kalluru Naganahalli village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on:

East by: Garden land of Mahadeva S/o Ramegowda

West by: Kallu-Yedalli Road,

North by: Halla

South by Arasikere Railway lane

(iii) Vacant site bearing katha No.168 of Kalluru village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk, bounded on:

East by: House of Shivaramegowda,

West by: Land of Muthushaiah,

North by: Lands of Kengegowda,

South by: Property of Kalegowda measuring 35 x 40 feet

(iv) Residential house bearing No.177 of Kalluru village, Yelwala Holali, Mysore Taluk, bounded on

East by: House of Mahadeva S/o Ramegowda

West by: Galli,

North by: House of Ramaswamy, S/o Nanjundegowda

South by: Road.

Measuring East to West 24 feet, and North to South 16 feet.”

5. A suit in O.S.No.196/2009 came to be filed by the daughters of late Boregowda and defendant No.1-Basamma, for the relief of partition and separate possession.

6. In the case on hand, relationship is not in dispute. So also the nature of the properties is also not in dispute.

7. However, before the Trial Court, the suit was resisted by defendant Nos.5 and 6 who are the children of defendant No.3, by filing the written statement contending that suit is filed to harass the defendants and to get unlawful enrichment, without seeking the relief of declaration.

8. It was also contended that suit is not maintainable, as there was an oral partition effected between plaintiffs and their brothers (defendant Nos.2 to 4). Defendant Nos.2 and 4 being the brothers of the plaintiffs relinquished their right in favour of defendant No.3 who is the father of defendant Nos.5 and 6.

9. It is also contended that relinquishment was in respect of land in Sy.No.111 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas, by receiving a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. By suppressing the said fact, suit came to be filed.

10. Learned Trial Judge raised the following issues for consideration:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 6?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the partition deed dated 11.01.2008 is not binding on them?

(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration of title?

(iv) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession?

(v) What order or decree?

11. Learned Trial Judge, after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments, answered Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 in the negative and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

12. The operative portion of the Judgment of the Trial Court reads as under.

“Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs.

It is held that the plaintiffs each are entitled for 7/36^th share over the suit schedule properties, the defenda