Daughters' coparcenary rights under the 2005 Amendment are subject to the saving clause for alienations made before 20.12.2004. Furthermore, first appellate courts must adhere to Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and cannot reverse reasoned trial court findings based on hypothetical assumptions.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

Heard the learned counsel for appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/4^th share in all the suit schedule properties, it is contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Munishamappa and Narayanappa. Munishamappa, the father of the plaintiff, did not have any male children, but only having four daughters. The defendant No.6, Venkatarayappa, was the husband of late Narayanamma, who was the eldest daughter of Munishamappa. He was managing the affairs of the entire family. Munishamappa had a wife by name Channamma, who died about 25 years ago. The said Munishamappa also passed away about 10 years ago. The plaintiff was married to Dyavappa about 20 years ago. During the lifetime of Munishamappa, on his behalf, defendant No.6 was assisting and managing the affairs of said Munishamappa. The said Munishamappa did not have any sound mind and health. After the death of Munishamappa, the plaintiff asked for her share in the suit schedule properties. The defendant Nos.3 to 6 made her believe that the schedule properties are being improved on behalf of all the members of the family of deceased Munishamappa and when a higher value is expected, the entire suit schedule properties would be sold, and the plaintiff would be given her legitimate share. It is contended that none of the defendants had any independent source of income other than the income acquired from the nucleus of property of late Munishamappa. During the month of August 1994, the plaintiff approached the defendants claiming her 1/4^th share. But the defendants denied her share in the properties. Hence, the suit is filed for the relief of partition.

3. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants stated that all the suit schedule properties have become their absolute properties, since late Munishamappa had executed deeds in their favour. Without prejudice to the plaintiff claiming 1/4^th share in the schedule properties, the plaintiff contend that Munishamappa did not have any necessity to sell any of the properties during his lifetime. Even if he had sold or alienated, the defendants belonging to joint family of Munishamappa, did not have any independent source of income to purchase the same and their purchase would in turn become joint family property.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 and the legal representatives of defendant No.7 filed a common written statement. The defendants denied all the averments made in the plaint. But admitted that the plaintiff was married to one Dyavappa 20 years ago. The defendants have denied the allegation that defendant No.6 was assisting and managing the affairs of the said Munishamappa. The defendants also denied that Munishamappa did not have any sound mind and health. The defendants also denied that after the death of Munishamappa, the plaintiff had asked her share. The defendants also denied that the defendants were not having any source of income other than the income acquired from the nucleus of the property of Munishamappa. It is contended that late Munishamappa had executed deeds in their favour and denied the contention that Munishamappa did not have any necessity to sell any of the properties. It is contended that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. It is also contended that item No.1 of the suit schedule property not at all belongs to Mastenahalli Village, Kaiwarva Hobli, Chintamani Taluk. The said property is situated at Marapalli Village, Kaiwarva Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, bearing Sy.No.10/3 measuring 0.25 guntas. The said land is sold by Munishamappa, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 to one Ghouse Sab of Kaiwara Village. The said Ghouse Sab sold the same to one Bachanna of Mastenahalli. The said Bachanna sold the same