Daughters in a Hindu joint family have equal rights to inheritance, as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This Regular First Appeal and Cross objection are filed by the appellants and the respondents respectively challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 19.11.2019 passed in OS No.52/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. Appellants were defendant Nos.2 to 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were the plaintiffs and other respondents were the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties.

4. Brief facts, leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows:

Ramappa was the original propositus, who had a wife by name Gourawwa. Plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and the deceased Jayapal were the children of Ramappa. Defendant Nos.2 and 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Jayapal and defendant No.5 is the wife of defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, Ramappa and Gourawwa died, leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs and the defendants are Hindu undivided joint family members. It is contended that the suit ‘A’ to ‘D’ schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs and defendants inherited the suit schedule properties through their common ancestors and are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. There was no severance of status. Defendants No.1 to 3 mutated their names in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule properties. Recently, due to a difference of opinion between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the defendants are trying to obstruct the peaceful joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties by colluding with each other. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to effect partition, but the defendants refused to effect partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession.

5. Defendants No.2 to 4 have filed a written statement contending that, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is false and frivolous. It is claimed that defendants No.1 and 3 have 27 guntas of land in property bearing R.S.No.527, measuring 2 acres 2 guntas in ‘A’ schedule properties, 3 guntas of land in R.S.No.586 measuring 20 guntas. 1(one) acre 24 guntas of land in R.S.No.657 measuring 2 acres 22 guntas and 18 guntas of land in R.S.No.673, which are inherited by their ancestors. Defendant No.3 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of 1/6^th share of VPC No.137/2 measuring 5 acres 17 guntas, which comes to 36 guntas. The defendant No.3 was in occupancy of Sri.Laxmidevi Temple of Yadgud village. VPC No.524 mentioned in suit ’B’ schedule property was inherited by defendant Nos.1 and 3 through their ancestors. VPC No.871/1 of Belagavi was constructed by the father of defendant No.3 i.e. Jayapal. VPC No.871/2 was constructed by defendant No.1, VPC No.516 and 526 are the ancestral properties of defendants No.1 and 3. It is contended that the propositus of the family, namely, Ramappa and Gourawwa performed the marriage of plaintiff No.1 and spent Rs.10,000/- towards marriage expenses and gave two tolas of gold.

Propositus died on 12.01.1981. The father of defendant No.3 and his mother Gourawwa performed the marriage of plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Plaintiff No.3 is not on good terms with her husband. Hence, she left her matrimonial home and started to live at her parent’s house. It is contended that, defendant No.1 was serving at Forest Department. As there was a misunderstanding between the daughters of the propositus, defendants No.1 and 3 partitioned their properties equally on the ev