Daughters are recognized as coparceners under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, entitling them to equal rights in ancestral property, irrespective of their birth date.

JUDGMENT :

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. Sai Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No.6 aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned II Additional District Judge (FTC) at Mahabubnagar, dated 05.03.2019 in O.S.No.26 of 2012, whereby the suit for partition and separate possession filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/plaintiffs has been decreed allotting 1/6th share to respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1, 1/6th share to respondent Nos.3 and 4/plaintiff Nos.3 and 4, 1/6^th share each to respondent Nos.5, 6 and 8/defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 and lastly, 1/6^th share to respondent Nos.10 to 13/defendant Nos.7 to 10.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.26 of 2012.

4. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking 1/6^th share in the property consisting of Ac.3.00 gts. of dry land in Sy.No.25/1 within limits of Badepally Village of Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (hereinafter referred as ‘suit schedule property’). Sayanna who is original owner of suit schedule property died intestate. The plaintiff No.1 and her late sister Yadamma are daughters of Late Sayanna. Yadamma died. Said Late Yadamma’s husband is plaintiff No.2 and sons are plaintiff Nos.3 and 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are sons of Late Sayanna and defendant No.5 is the wife of Late Sayanna. Defendant No.6 is the purchaser who purchased suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 to 4 by way of registered sale deed dated 05.01.2008 vide document No.496 of 2008. Defendant No.5 died during pendency of the suit. Defendant No.4 also died during pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were brought on record as defendant Nos.7 to 10.

5. The plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that the suit schedule property was purchased by Late Sayanna under a private sale deed dated 10.05.1972 and has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of his self-acquired property. After the death of Late Sayanna, the property has been in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5. When the plaintiffs sought partition, defendant Nos.1 to 5 denied to partition and allot separate share to the plaintiffs, leading to filing of the suit under appeal. After filing of the suit, defendant Nos.1 to 4 who are siblings plaintiff No.1 and brothers-in-law to plaintiff No.2 admitted the relationship but denied right of the plaintiffs to allotment of a share in the suit schedule property on the premise that plaintiff No.1 and Late Yadamma were married in the year 1983 by spending huge amount of money and by giving gold and silver ornaments. Ever since marriage, since the marriages were performed by giving money and gold ornaments, according to defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 5, plaintiffs are not entitled to any share. In addition, defendant Nos.1 and 2 pleaded that they have taken loan from defendant No.6 and therefore, nominally executed promissory note and registered sale deed dated 05.01.2008 in favour of defendant No.6 with an understanding to redeliver the property after payment of entire money with interest. As such, neither the plaintiffs nor defendant No.6 have any right over the suit schedule property.

6. According to defendant No.6, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the owners of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from the erstwhile vendor through a simple sale deed and got validated the same under the provisions of Record of Rights Act, 1971. The said property is conveyed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.6 on 05.01.2008. The property was never purchased by late Sayanna. There is no documentary proof to show that plaintiff No.1 and Late Yadamma are daughters of Late Sayanna and therefore, neither the plaintiffs, nor the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have any rights over the suit schedule property. Defendant No.6 has been in possession of the suit schedule property ever since its purcha