The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Central enactment prevails over the State law, and the daughters, including those married prior to 1994, are entitled to an equal share in the ancestral property under the amended Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT

V.V.KANKANWADI, J. - The second appeal has been filed by original defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 to challenge concurrent judgment and decree. Present Respondent No.1 is original plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.472/2005 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Udgir, District Latur for partition and separate possession. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit on 15/1/2014 and held that, the plaintiff has 1/6th share in Survey No.70/1/1/, admeasuring 4 hectares and 75 Ares, situated at village Madalapur, Tq. Udgir, District Latur. Original defendant No.1 alone, filed Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2014 to challenge the said judgment and decree. The said appeal came to be dismissed by learned District Judge-1, Udgir District Latur on 20/12/2018. Hence, the present Second Appeal.

2. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellants that both the Courts below have not considered the evidence and the law points involved properly. The relationship between the parties has not been denied. The plaintiff and defendant No.3 are sisters and defendant No.1 is their brother, inter se. Original defendant No.2 was their mother. Their father - Jyotiram Gunda Jadhav expired on 14/12/1998, who has left behind the suit property. According to the plaintiff, deceased Jyotiram had given 2 hectares and 42 R. land in the name of defendant No.1 just to take benefit of some Government Schemes. However, there was no actual partition of the property because no share was given to defendant No.2. The said property was divided into plots and, therefore, its price has gone up. The plaintiff contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 intended to oust the plaintiff from inheritance and, therefore, she demanded her share from the suit property, however, it was refused and, therefore, she had filed the suit. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had filed their Written Statement. However, later on, defendant No.2 expired. They had contended that the suit property was partitioned by deceased Jyotiram in the year 1982. They denied the fact that the plaintiff and defendants are members of joint family. Two hectares and 42 R land was given to defendant No.1 and rest of the property was kept by Jyotiram in the name of himself and defendant No.2 in the year 1982. Mutation entry to that effect was effected and, therefore, now the plaintiff has no right to claim share in the property. Even defendant No.3 - another sister, has supported the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. According to her, the said partition was effected with the consent of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was then contended that after the said property came to the share of defendant No.1 in the partition of 1982, wife of defendant No.1 had lodged partition suit bearing RCS No.101/2003 on behalf of her minor sons, i.e. present appellant Nos.2 and 3 (original defendant Nos.4 and 5) in which there was compromise and half share each was given to them, thereby now defendant Nos.4 and 5 have become exclusive owners of part of the property. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 have also filed similar Written Statement. It has been further contended by the learned Advocate for the appellants that in spite of leading cogent and conclusive evidence, both the Courts have wrongly held that the suit property was ancestral and joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff and the defendants. It was wrongly held that defendant No.1 and deceased deft.no.2 failed to prove that there was previous partition effected by Jyotiram in the year 1982. Under those circumstances, it was held that the plaintiff is having 1/6th share. In fact, after the partition, half of the same became exclusive property of?deft.No.1 and rest of the property went to deft.No.2. Therefore, on the date of the suit, no property was left, which can be said to be either ancestral or joint family property. Both the Courts below have wrongly held that the deft.Nos. 1 and 2 have not proved that partition of