Only an unprovided or indigent daughter (nirdhan) has a prior right of inheritance to her father's estate, excluding her sisters. Where there is no such daughter, the endowed or enriched daughters (sadhan), i.e., those possessed of wealth, share their father's property equally.

JUDGMENT :- The dispute in this appeal relates to properties which originally belonged to one Ganpatlal Parasharam of Shirpur in the West Khandesh District. Ganpatlal died in 1929 leaving behind two married daughters, the plaintiff Jankibai and the original defendant Sitabai and a widow Devakibai. Ganpatlal left behind him a large estate, consisting of lands and houses valued in the plaint at Rs.1,00,000 and movable properties worth about Rs.8,400. Devakibai died on 29-10-1943. The moveable properties of Ganpatlal were then divided equally between Jankibai and Sitabai. They also made applications to the revenue authorities stating that they were the joint heirs of their father Ganpatlal and that the names of both of them should be entered in the revenue records. The lands were accordingly entered in the names of both of them in the revenue records. It appears that all the houses and the lands, except a hall in a bungalow at Shirpur, were in the possession of tenants. The defendant looked after the properties and realised the rents for some time. According to the plaintiff Jankibai, all the tenants attorned to her after the present suit was filed. Sitabais husband is very much more wealthy than Jankibais husband. Some time in 1945 the plaintiff was advised that as she was not as well off as her sister Sitabai, she was entitled to succeed to all the properties left behind by Ganpatlal to the exclusion of Sitabai. In October 1946, the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant in which she claimed to be the sole heir of Ganpatlal. She demanded an account of the income realised by the defendant and the return of the moveables, which had been given to the defendant after the death of Devakibai. The defendant replied to this notice and denied that the plaintiff was the only heir of Ganpatlal. The plaintiff then filed the present suit, in which she prayed for a declaration that she was the sole owner of the properties left behind by Ganpatlal and that the defendant had no right to them. She asked for the return of the moveables, which had been handed over to the defendant, or for Rs.4,200 as their value. She also prayed that the defendant should be directed to render an account of the income of the suit properties received by her during the time she was in management thereof. By an amendment made in the plaint subsequently, the plaintiff asked for possession of the hall of the bungalow at Shirpur, which was in the possession of the defendant. This suit was resisted by the defendant, who raised various contentions. The principal contention raised by her, with which we are concerned in this appeal, was that the plaintiff was also well placed in life, that she was not poor or indigent and that she was therefore not the sole heir of Ganpatlal. The original defendant, Sitabai, the sister of the plaintiff, died during the pendency of the suit. Her husband was then brought on record as her legal representative. The learned trial Judge held that as compared to the defendant, the plaintiff was less well placed in life and that consequently she was the isole heir of Ganpatlal. He accordingly granted the plaintiff a declaration that she was the sole owner of the estate left by her deceased father Ganpatlal. He also directed the defendant to hand over to the plaintiff the possession of the hall of the bungalow at Shirpur and the moveables received by her or their value Rs.4,200. The defendant was also directed to render an account of all the expenses incurred over and the income derived from the immoveable properties from the date of the death of Devakibai up to the dates on which the tenants had attorned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was also awarded her costs of the suit. Against these orders passed by the trial Judge, the defendant has come in appeal.

The plaintiffs husband has stated in his evidence that in 1843 he owned lands at Chopda, Biroda, Shahapur Bori and other places, assessed at Rs.200 to Rs.250 from which he got an income