The judgment reinforces daughters' coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act, stating that alienation by male relatives does not bar the daughters' claims for partition of property.

ORDER :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Ashok G.V., learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. Smt. B.Meenakumari who is defendant No.9(b) in O.S.No.1865/2013, who is defendant No.2(b) in O.S.No. 1864/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, has filed Civil Revision Petition No.433/2023 and Civil Revision Petition No.429/2023 respectively, challenging the validity of the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.8, whereby application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be dismissed in both the suits.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petitions are as under:

A suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the following immovable property (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’ came to be filed by the plaintiffs.

SCHEDULE IN O.S.No.1865/2013 (CRP No.433/2023)

Landed property bearing Sy.No.82/1A, measuring 09 guntas and Sy.No.82/1B measuring 39 guntas in all 1 acre 8 guntas situated Chikkahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore taluk and Dist. Bounded on:

SCHEDULE IN O.S.No.1864/2013 (CRP No.429/2023)

Item No.1: Landed property bearing Sy.No.82/1B, measuring 39 guntas situated at Chikkahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore taluk and Dist. Bounded on:

Item No.2: Site property bearing Janjar No.255, property No.245, measuring East to West 30 feet North to South 40 feet situated at Chikkahalli village, Varuna hobli, Mysore taluk and Dist. Bounded on:

Item No.3: Site property bearing Janjaar No.130, Property No.121 measuring East to West 25 feet North to South 30 feet, situated at Chikkahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore taluk and Dist. Bounded on:

4. In the suit, it is contented that Doddachennaiah and Kempamma had five children viz., Ankamma-plaintiff No.1, Puttamadamma and Ankaiah who are no more, defendant Nos.1 to 4 are legal heirs of deceased Ankaiah, Madaiah died, defendant Nos.5 to 8 and second plaintiff are legal heirs of deceased Madaiah.

5. It is further contented that father of the first plaintiff possessed ancestral properties which are the suit properties. Father of the plaintiffs passed away around 30 years ago leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8 as his legal heirs. After the death of the father of the first plaintiff, suit property was managed and was treated as joint family property.

6. It is further contented that first plaintiff being the daughter of the second plaintiff being the granddaughter of Doddachennaiah she is also entitled for the share in the suit property.

7. Further contention of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and recently she came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 8 along with Kempamma, wife of Dodachennaiah and late Ankaiah, late Madaiah, colluding with each other, sold the suit properties in favour of defendant No.9 through a registered sale deed dated 24.11.1995.

8. It is also contented that plaintiffs came to know about the execution of the sale