&

DECREE

DTD:

17.7.2013

PASSED

IN

R.A.NO.126/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,

FAST TRACK COURT, SAGAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND

- 4 -

MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 15.3.2010

PASSED IN OS.NO.115/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, SAGAR.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeal is filed by defendant

No.4 feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the

Appellate Court wherein Appellate Court has declined to

grant share to the defendant No.4 on the premise that she

was born in 1949 and that her marriage was solemnized

much prior to amendment to Section 6(A) of Hindu

Succession Act. Consequently, 1/5^th share granted by the

trial Court is reversed thereby declining share to defendant

No.4.

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

to as per their rank before the trial Court.

The family tree is as under:

- 5 -

Rangappa Jois (Husband)

(Died 1970)

|

-----------------------------------------------

|

|

Meenakshamma

Gangamma (2^nd wife)

(Died) (1^st Wife)

(Died 2005)

|

|

Krishnamurthy

---------------------------------------------------

Son (Died)

|

|

|

|

|

| K.R.Lakshmidevi Ramamurthy Nagaraja Bhimarao Sridhar

|

|

|

|

------------------------------- |

|

|

|

|

Radamma Prakash Subramanya |

Wife Son Son

|

------------------------------

|

|

|

Krishanaveni Gayathri Sandya

One K.R.Sridhar who is the son of Gangamma

and Rangappa Jois filed a suit for partition and separate

possession and said suit was decreed granting 1/5^th share

to the plaintiff and 1/5^th share to the defendants. Under

the preliminary decree, the trial Court has granted 1/5^th

share to defendant No.4. The Appellate Court, however,

while entertaining the appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 and

3 has allowed the appeal in part declining to grant share to

the defendant No.4 on the premise that she was born in

- 6 -

1949 and that her marriage was solemnized much prior to

Karnataka amendment to Hindu Succession Act i.e.,

Section 6(A).

Therefore, defendant No.4 who is the daughter

is before this Court questioning the judgment and decree

of the Appellate Court.

This Court vide order dated 31.01.2023 was

pleased to admit the appeal on the following substantial

question of law:

“Whether findings of the Appellate Court that

defendant No.2, who is a daughter is not entitled for

any share, is perverse, palpably erroneous and

contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh

Sharma and others reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717?”

The controversy relating to entitlement of share

by a daughter is put to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma and

- 7 -

Others¹. The law is no more res integra. Appellate Court

has declined to grant share to defendant No.4 on two

counts. Firstly, that she was born much prior to

codification of Hindu law. Secondly, on the ground that

her marriage was solemnized before amendment to

Section 6(A) of the Hindu Succession Act.

8.

It is not in dispute that plaintiff and defendants

father Rangappa Jois died after 1956 i.e., 13.12.1971. If

father of defendant No.4 has died after 1956, it is

immaterial whether defendant No.4 was born prior to

codification of Hindu Law. It would be of no consequence.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the principles laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma

(supra) are squarely applicable to the present case on

hand. If both the Courts have concurrently held that there

is no severance in the family and the nucleus is intact,

then defendant No.4 in view of amendment to Section 6 of

1 (2020) 9 SCC 1

- 8 -

the Hindu Succession Act would assume the character of a

co-parcener and therefore, she is entitled for equal share.

9.

Therefore, the judgment rendered by the

Appellate