Previous family partition and lack of joint family status preclude the plaintiff from claiming coparcenary rights under Hindu law amendments.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. RSA No.1272 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 passed in R.A. No.278 of 2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal.

2. RSA No.1271 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 passed in R.A. No.91 of 2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing the appeal, and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and respondents were the defendants.

4. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows.

5. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9 constituted a Hindu undivided joint family. Defendant No.1 is managing the joint family properties. Defendant No.1 being the father and elder member of the family, the suit schedule properties are cultivated by defendant No.1 on behalf of the joint family. The occupancy rights regarding the suit schedule properties was conferred by the Land Tribunal in favour of defendant No.1. The suit schedule properties were granted in favour of defendant No.1 to enure to the benefit of the whole family. The plaintiff and defendants are in the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is contented that there is a Panchayat partition deed executed on 24.05.1982 in between defendants Nos.1 to 4. At that time, the plaintiff was a minor.

6. Defendant No.2 filed a suit in O.S. No.115 of 1988 for a partition and separate possession against defendant No.1 and others, which ended in a compromise.

7. Later on, defendant No.1 filed another suit in O.S. No.789 of 1992 against defendant No.2 and others. All the defendants have, by colluding with each other, partitioned the joint family properties by ignoring the rights of the plaintiff.

8. It is contented that as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the plaintiff is a coparcener and she is entitled to her 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties, however the defendants refused to effect a partition. It is also contended that the defendant No.1 was completely bed-ridden, and suffered paralysis.

9. It is contended that, the sale deed dated 12.05.2004 alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 is not binding on the plaintiff's share. It is also contended that defendant No.3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.10 regarding the lands bearing Survey Nos.59 and 60 of Arehalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk denying the pendency of the suit for partition and separate possession.

10. It is contended that defendant No.10 is not a bona fide purchaser, and he was aware about the pendency of the sui