The appellate court affirmed a daughter's entitlement to inherit property equally due to her established lineage and the 2005 amendments to inheritance laws granting daughters coparcener rights.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. This is defendant No.1 Second Appeal preferred under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2014 passed by 1^st Additional District Judge Janjgir in Civil Appeal No. 86-A/2010 arising out of judgment and decree dated 28.10.2010 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Pamgarh, District janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No. 166-A/2007 by which learned District Judge has reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by partly allowing the appeal declaring the title of the plaintiff Narmada Bai to the extent of ½ of the share in the suit land.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status shown in the Civil suit No. 166-A/2007 before the trial Court.

3. The appeal was admitted on 05.10.2015 on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the finding of the First Appellate court is perverse regarding declaration of ½ of the share of the suit land to the plaintiff.

4. Brief facts of the case reflected from the record are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title, partition to the extent of ½ share of the suit land bearing khasra Nos. 722,833/1,1160,1451/1,451/2, 1451/2 and 1494 total area admeasuring 5.73 acre situated at Gram Bhaiso, Patwari Halka No. 4, Revenue Circule and Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa (hereinafter referred to suit land) mainly contending that ;-

(a) The suit land was recorded in the name of grandfather of plaintiff Sadhuram in the year 1954-55 and he was cultivating the suit land, after death of Sadhuram the suit land was recorded in the name of his legal heirs. The genealogy of the family is mentioned in plaint according to which late Sadhuram had two sons namely Rama and Bhulau. Out of them Rama wife was Phoolkunwar, and his daughter is Narmadabai plaintiff before the trial Court. It is also case of the plaintiff that Hariram died issueless and Bhulau has only one son namely Bhagwat/defendant No.1. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 was 18 years old, then her mother Phoolkunwar married with her brother-in-law Bhulau and started living with him, as such plaintiff became the sole owner of the property of Rama.

(b) It is contended that the suit land was recorded in the joint name of Rama and Bhulau and after death of Bhulau, defendant No.1 fraudulently did not enter the name of the plaintiff in the joint account of the plaintiff instead he has recorded the name of her mother in the record of rights. It is also contended that after marriage of the plaintiff she started residing at her matrimonial house in Village Ranigaon and during this time the plaintiff demanded her share in the suit land from defendant No.1. But the defendant No.1 only gave assurance and in February 2004, he refused to give her share in the suit land by stating that she can claim partition through Court proceedings. Consequently, the plaintiff filed an application before the Court of Tahsildar, Pamgarh for recording her name in the suit land in Revenue Case No. A-6/47/2003-04 by which the Tahsildar has rejected the plaintiff’s application for recording her name.

(c) It is further contended that the suit land was originally recorded in the year 1954-55 as 7.25 acres out of which 1.52 acres of land has already been sold by the defendant No.1 and presently only. 5.73 acres of land remained there and on this factual foundation, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession.

5. The defendants have filed the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint mainly contending that:-

(a) It is contended that the plaintiff has mentioned her father's name as Bhulau, whereas in the statements made in the family tree where the plaintiff has described herself as the sole heir of Rama. It is also stated that Tehsildar Pamgarh by following due process of law has passed the order on the plaintiff's application and has rejected the application of the plainti