Daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral properties, and failure to prove prior partition results in entitlement to share for plaintiffs.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA)

Suit is one for partition and separate possession seeking 8/21st share in the suit property. The family genealogy is as under:

2. The defendant has set up a plea of prior partition having taken place between the two brothers namely Doddagouda and Basanagouda. The trial Court framed necessary issues and issue No.3 was ‘‘Whether the defendant No.1 proves that there was partition taken place in the year 1985 between both the parties?’’. The trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that the defendant No.1 failed to prove that in the partition effected in the year 1985, the Schedule – A(1) property and ½ share in Schedule – A(2) property fell to his share.

3. The trial Court however by taking notional partition held that the plaintiffs are entitled for 8/21st share in the suit property. The appeal preferred by the defendants came to be affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts on facts held that the defendants have failed to prove about the prior partition effected and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for share. It is relevant to note that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that the notional partition has to be effected. The law is well settled in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others ILR 2020 KAR 4370 that the daughters are entitled for equal share in the ancestral properties. The defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the daughters of the original propositus Banappagouda Basanagouda Gadiyappagoudar. Defendant No.1 is the son and plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and son of Basanagouda S/o. Banappagouda, thus the plaintiffs together would be entitled to 1/7th share and defendants 1 to 6 each would be entitled for 1/7th share. Learned counsel on both sides submit that both the parties have settled the matter amicably, but for want of instructions they are unable to report to the Court. This Court makes it clear that shares quantified by this Court would not come in the way, if the parties have amicably resolved the dispute. The concurrent findings of facts regarding prior partition, failed to be established by the defendants, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal to be dealt with under Section 100 CPC warranting any interference.

4. With the above observation, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

The Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.