JUDGMENT :

(P. Sree Sudha, J.)

1. This Second Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.02.2008 in A.S. No.15 of 2005 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, in which the Judgment and decree dated 11.08.2005 in O.S. No.21 of 1997 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella was confirmed.

2. Appellants/plaintiffs are daughters of respondent herein. They filed a suit in O.S. No.21 of 1997 against the respondent/defendant for partition and separate possession. The plaintiff No. 1 examined herself as P.W.1 and also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on behalf of the plaintiffs and marked Exs.A1 to A3. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and also got examined D.W.2 on his behalf and marked Exs.B1 and B2. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit and the same was also confirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, appellants/plaintiffs preferred the present second appeal.

3. Appellants/plaintiffs raised the following substantial questions of law:

"I. Whether the courts below has right in view of the admission of the mother of the plaintiffs during their minority their claim to share in the joint family property is lost as a coparcener as per the amendment Act 39/2005 read with State Amended Act of 1986.

II. Whether in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Section 29 of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT , 1956 by Act 39/2005, the distinction of married and unmarried as per Hindu Succession (A.P Amendment) Act, 1986 stands impliedly repealed.

III. Whether the finding of court below rejecting the share to daughter inspite of existence of the joint family properties described in the plaint liable for partition at the instance of the daughter coparceners as per amended Act 39/2005 as the devolution of interest in the coparcener property is on the basis of the survivorship.

IV. Whether the admission by the P.W.1 mother of the plaintiffs that she received money for maintenance of daughter will invalidate the right for the partition properties as per the amendment Act 39/2005 as no partition has been pleaded by the respondent till the filing of the suit.

V. Whether the daughter/coparcener of Hindu mitakshara family shall be deemed to have share in the property that would be allotted to her on the basis of survivorship."

4. The plaintiffs in the suit are the daughters of the defendant, but presently they are residing in their maternal uncle's house at Parveda village along with their mother. They stated that defendant necked out their mother from his house due to some family disputes. The defendant is having ancestral lands in Sy.Nos.21/U/E, 22/A, 40/A, 103/1A, 103/2/A/E and 48/A admeasuring Ac.0 - 29gts, Ac.0 - 07 gts, Ac.0 - 13 gts, Acs.2 - 02 gts, Ac.0 - 03 gts and Ac.0 - 20 gts respectively, totally admeasuring Acs.3 - 34 gts situated at Kesaram Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The defendant as pattadar succeeded the suit property after the death of his father. Plaintiffs and defendant are having joint ownership over the ancestral properties. Due to family disputes, their mother T.Anasuya left the house of the defendant during their childhood and residing separately in their maternal uncle's home and they were brought up by their mother. Though the defendant was the natural father, he did not look after them. Plaintiffs along with their maternal uncle went to the defendant and requested him to help for the marriage of the plaintiff No. 1, but he refused. Even their mother also requested hi