A granddaughter and daughter-in-law cannot claim a share in ancestral property during the lifetime of the male coparcener, as per the Hindu Succession Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.4648/2016 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH.No.2) (for short, ‘Trial Court’) whereby the said suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession, declaration that they are entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the material on record. The respondents having been served with notice of the appeal, have chosen to remain unrepresented and they have not contested the appeal.

3. Though the matter is posted for ‘Admission’, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and in the light of the amended provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 11 of CPC, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

4. A Perusal of the material on record will indicate that appellant No.1/plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of defendant No.1 Sri.Anjanappa while appellant No.2/plaintiff No.2, the mother of plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Anjanappa. It is a matter on record that defendant No.1/respondent No.1 Anjanappa was son of late Shankarappa and respondent No.2/defendant No.2 is the wife of late Shankarappa while the defendant Nos.3 to 6 are the remaining children of the said Shankarappa. The appellants/plaintiffs being the granddaughter and daughter-in-law of Shankarappa filed the instant suit inter alia contending that the suit schedule property was originally allotted in favour of the aforesaid late Shankarappa’s father Ankaiah and registered sale deed dated 29.06.1992 was executed in favour of Shankarappa. It is contended that upon demise of aforesaid Shankarappa, the suit schedule property became the ancestral and joint family property of the appellants and respondent Nos.1 to 6 who became entitled to their respective legitimate shares in the suit schedule property. It was also contended that the respondent Nos.1 to 6/defendant Nos.1 to 6 executed a registered sale deed dated 01.08.2013 in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 - alienees in relation to the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 being the daughter and wife of Anjanappa instituted proceedings against respondent No.1/defendant No.1 in Crl.Misc.No.641/2010 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2012 (for short, ‘PWDV Act’), in which liberty was granted in favour of the appellants to file the present suit and as such they filed the instant suit for partition, declaration and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property.

5. As stated supra, it is the specific contention of the appellants/plaintiffs that the property originally belonged to one Shankarappa and upon his demise, the suit schedule property became ancestral/joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6, who are entitled to their legitimate shares in the suit schedule property and the defendant Nos.1 to 6 were not entitled to execute the registered sale deed dated 01.08.2013 in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 and consequently the appellants/plaintiffs entitled to their legitimate share in the suit schedule property.

6. The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 entered their appearance but did not file their written statement in the suit before the Trial Court, while respondent Nos.3, 7 and 8 were places exparte. The second plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked and there was no cross-examination by the respondents/defendants who also did not add