Daughters are entitled to equal inheritance rights as sons under Hindu law, reaffirmed by the court when the Will excluding them was not proved valid.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. RFA No.1202/2019 is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.8157/2010 questioning the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.8157/2010 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short] thereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed in part. Whereas, RFA No.1818/2019 filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.8157/2010 questioning the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8157/2010.

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

3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming that one Lakshmana Rao is the original propositus, who had four children namely, the plaintiffs and 1^st defendant and husband of 2^nd defendant. It is pleading of the plaintiffs that the said Lakshmana Rao had acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of a family partition during the year 1957. Therefore, the suit schedule property is joint family and ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants and after the death of said Lakshmana Rao, the plaintiffs and defendants have succeeded to the estate as co-owners. Smt. Mangamma Bai is the wife of Lakshmana Rao, who died on 01.08.1997. The son, namely Gajendra Rao died on 04.10.2007 leaving behind his wife-2^nd defendant and two minor children to succeed to the suit schedule property.

4. Further submitted that there is no partition and the suit schedule property remained and continued as joint family and ancestral property and there is no partition in the family. The plaintiffs upon making demand for partition and claiming their share, but the defendants have refused to do so; hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession.

5. In response to summons issued, the defendants appeared through their Advocate and filed written statement. It is the case of defendant No.1 made out in the written statement that Lakshmana Rao during his lifetime executed a registered Will dated 08.01.1986 in favour of his wife Smt. Mangamma Bai in respect of the suit schedule property and in the said Will, he expressed his wishes and desire that after his death, his wife Mangamma Bai shall be entitled to his estates during her life time and he has not provided any share in the suit schedule property to his daughters i.e., to the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs had been provided adequately during their marriage. The said Lakshmana Rao died on 13.02.1986 leaving behind his wife, two sons and two daughters. Therefore, the sons are having the shares of 50% each, but not to the daughters. Therefore, they claim share of50% each to defendant Nos.1 and 2.

6. Defendant No.2 has also filed the written statement and contended that the defendants are also entitled for 1/4^th share and claimed by metes and bounds being wife of her husband the deceased Gajendra Rao. Therefore, he prayed for declaration of 1/4^th share by metes and bounds in the suit schedule property. According to the pleadings, the trial Court has framed following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are having 1/4^th share in the suit properties?

2) Whether the defendant No.1 proves the execution of valid Will dated 8.1.1986 by Late Lakshmana Rao in favour of his wife in respect of suit properties?

3) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that plaintiffs and defendants have sold item No.2 of suit schedule property to Sri.T.Nagara