IMPORTANT POINT
Daughters have equal coparcener rights in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT:

K. Sujana, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2017 in O.S.No.2 of 2012, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties was allowed by allotting 1/15th share of the suit schedule properties.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and respondents herein are the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the main suit.

3. The brief facts of the case, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the present appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the main suit for the partition and separate possession and also for allotment of 1/5th share to the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is stated that the plaintiff’s father, namely Late Sri Ashanna succeeded the suit schedule properties after the death of her grandfather, who was managing the joint family, in the year 1989. Later, defendant No.1, mother of the plaintiff, passed away. Thereafter, defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are elder brothers of the plaintiff, illegally mutated their names in the land revenue records without the consent of the plaintiff and her late parents under the guise that the female successors are not entitled for any share. Having knowledge of the same, defendant Nos.6 to 10 purchased a part of the suit schedule properties through registered sale deeds from defendant Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the present suit.

4. Before the trial Court, defendant No.2 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that since the suit schedule properties were on the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the plaintiff has no subsisting share, they have executed sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.6 to 10. On the other hand, defendant Nos.6 to 10 also filed written statement contending that they purchased a part of the suit schedule properties believing that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule properties.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit schedule properties were already partitioned?

2. Whether the plaintiff is in the joint possession of the properties as prayed for?

3. Whether the court fee paid on the plaint is incorrect?

4. Is the suit barred by limitation?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree for partition of schedule properties as prayed for? If so, what relief?

6. The plaintiff, in support of her case, she has examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.26. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.37 were marked.

7. The trial Court on appreciating the evidence on record, has decreed the suit and allotted 1/15th share to the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff

8. Heard Sri Challari Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material available on record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court ought to have allotted 1/5th share instead of 1/15th share in respect of suit schedule properties as the plaintiff is in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and others, (2020) 9 SCC and prayed the Court to allow the appeal by allotting 1/5th share in respect of the suit schedule properties.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that since there is a prior partition between the legal heirs, the plaintiff being female succeeder is not entitled for any share in respect of the suit schedule properties. Hence, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court only to the extent of allotting 1/15th share to