The amended Hindu Succession Act recognizes daughters as coparceners, granting them equal rights in joint family property, irrespective of prior arrangements or claims of separation.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Joint Family Property - Claim for partition - Plaintiff claimed her share as coparcener in joint family property, asserting earlier agreements were not binding - Defendants denied joint family status and previous arrangements - Court emphasized statutory recognition of daughters as coparceners under amended Hindu law. (Paras 1, 12, 13, 15, 16)

(B) Partition - Judicial proceedings - Proper evidence needed for claims of property partition - Imbalance in previous arrangements not altering statutory rights - Court outlined principles of joint possession and rights of daughters. (Paras 11, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed a 1/7th share in family property, asserting it remained undivided despite prior claimed partitions and arrangements during family panchayats. Defendants contested claiming existing partition and denial of coparcener status.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's preliminary decree affirming the plaintiff's coparcener rights was upheld, confirming her entitlement to a share.

Issues: Main issues included determining jointness of property, recognition of coparcener rights, and legitimacy of previous family arrangements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that despite claims of separation, the daughter retains rights as a coparcener under the Act, emphasizing that evidence indicated properties were not partitioned effectively.

Result: Appeal dismissed; plaintiff entitled to share.

Table of Content
1. joint hindu family property and inheritance rights (Para 3 , 5)
2. admission of relationship and denial of joint family status (Para 4 , 6)
3. arguments regarding joint family status and legal rights of the plaintiff (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's confirmation of plaintiff's rights under hindu law (Para 15 , 16)
5. final decree and relief granted to the plaintiff (Para 17)

JUDGMENT :

Tirumala Devi Eada, J.

This is an appeal filed by the appellants – defendants 1 to 5, being aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree, dated 07.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.04 of 2004 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short “the trial Court”).

2. The parties are addressed herein as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the defendant No.1 is her father, defendant Nos.2 to 5 are her brothers and defendant No.6 is her sister respectively. Originally, the father of the defendant No.1 i.e. Valishala Muthaiah was the Manager of Joint Hindu Family and that the Joint Hindu family was holding the lands, houses, cash and gold as described in the plaint schedule. After the demise of said Muthaiah, the suit schedule properties were inherited by the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff being the coparcener of the Joint Hindu Family, she is claiming her share in the suit schedule properties. It is her further case that her marriage was performed with one Koppoju Brahma Chary on 02.11.1985 as per Hindu Customs and Rites and that she is blessed with three daughters out of the wedlock. It is further averred that the marriages of defendant Nos.2 to 6 are also performed and that the plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying the suit schedule property jointly and that recently defendant No.1 started mismanaging the suit schedule properties and as such, the plaintiff has demanded for partition and separate possession of her 1/7^th share and that initially the defendants have accepted but are not coming forward to effect the same, thus, at the instance of plaintiff a panchayath was held with caste elders and village elders on 15.03.2001 and that the defendants have once again accepted for partition, but still not coming forward to materialize the same. Once again the plaintiff called for a panchayath with the caste elders on 01.04.2001 and in that meeting the defendants refused to partition on the pretext that the plaintiff is having three daughters and that if the properties are partitioned after the marriage of her three daughters, the entire property will go into the hands of third parties and due to said reason, they refused for partition. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants have filed written statement admitting the inter se relationship among the parties but they denied the jointness of the family. They admitted that Muthaiah was the Manager of the Joint Hindu Family and that the Joint Hindu Family was holding some landed property but now the joint family status has been severed and there is no jointness and the suit schedule properties are no more joint family properties. They further denied that the plaintiff and defendant No.6 to be the successors of V.Muthaiah and contended that plaintiff is no way concerned with the joint family and she cannot be treated as a coparcener. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff’s marriage was performed on 02.11.1985 and that the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the suit schedule properties along with the defendants. They further denied the averments of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 started mismanaging the properties and that the defendants have never agreed to give 1/7^th share to the plaintiff. They further denied the holding of panchayaths and that the defendants have agreed before the panchayath elders on 15.03.2001 to allot 1/7^th share to the plaintiff and they also denied another panchayath alleged to be held on 01.04.2001. It i