Daughters are coparceners with equal rights to property by birth under Section 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, and unrecognized oral partitions do not affect these rights.

JUDGMENT :

Bibhu Datta Guru, J.

1. By the present appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant/plaintiff has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Circuit Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/2008 (Amrika Bai & Ors. v. Bhagwati Bai & Ors.), arising out of the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 35-A/2006 (Amrika Bai & Ors. v. Dhanuk & Ors.), whereby the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The instant appeal was admitted by this Court on 21.06.2021 on the following substantial question of law :

“Whether both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit holding that by virtue of proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed the property of her father, Dhanuk, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record.?”

3. The plaintiffs preferred a suit for partition of agricultural land for separate possession of land situated at Patwari Halka No. 25 Lalbahadur Nagar, Tahsil Dongargarh, Khasra No. 378 Rakba 0.862 Hectare, Khasra No. 692 Rakba .016 Hectare, Khasra No. 690 Rakba 0.138 hectare, khasra No. 357/1 Rakba 0.142 Hect, Khasra No. 416 Rakba 0.231 Hect., Khasra No. 431 Rakba 0.202 hect, Khasra No. 598 Rakba 0.360 hect. Khasra No. 600 Rabka 0.930 Hect. Khasra No. 610 Rakba 0.150 Hect and Khasra No. 617 Rakba 0.267 Hectare of land, pleading inter alia that plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of original defendant No.1 Dhanuk whereas the plaintiff No.2 is the husband of Kachra Bai, who is another daughter of said Dahnuk and the plaintiffs No.3 to 8 are the children of plaintiff No.2. It has been pleaded that the father of original defendant No.1 Dhanuk namely; Dhukhel Lodhi owned 26.00 acres of land. After death of Dhukhel, in the partition of ancestral property, Dhanuk received 6.30 acres of land. From the income derived from the said ancestral property, Dhanuk purchased 2.50 acres of land from Asharam and others of village Ramatola and thereafter started residing separately from the joint family of his brothers along with his wife Hemkunwar. Out of wedlock of Hemkunwar Bai & Dhanuk, they blessed with two daughters, namely Amrikabai (plaintiff No.1) and Kacharabai (since deceased), who is the wife of plaintiff No.2 and mother of plaintiffs No.3 to 8. Dhanuk used to habitually assault his wife Hemkunwar. After the marriage of both daughters, he began to subjected Hemkunwar Bai to further cruelty and brought Bhagwatibai (defendant No.2) to the house as his wife. Consequently, his first wife Hemkunwar Bai filed an application before the Court seeking maintenance, which was allowed. Upon filing of the maintenance proceedings by Hemkunwar Bai, Dhanuk, under the influence of his second wife Bhagwatibai, got 2.82 hectares, i.e., approximately 5.50 acres of land out of the ancestral property mutated in the names of his sons Ajay Kumar (defendant No.3) and Madhav (defendant No.4), who were born from Bhagwatibai, and retained only 1.016 hectares, i.e., approximately 2.54 acres of land in his separate account. During this period, Hemkunwar Bai p