Daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral joint family properties under the Hindu Succession Act, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court ruling in Vineetha Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is by defendant No.3, 5, 7, 9 in O.S. No.1/2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Gubbi, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 29.01.2020 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru, (for short 'First Appellate Court') in R.A. Nos.364/2018 and 365/2018, by which the first Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.1 of 2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi (for short 'Trial Court')

2. Suit in O.S. No.1/2012 was filed by one Lakshmi and Sujatha, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 claiming to be daughter and wife respectively of one B. Chandrashekaraiah, against Jayalakshmamma-defendant No.1, B. Neelakantaiah-defendant No.2, Susheela-defendant No.3, Paramesh-defendant No.4, Kamala-defendant No.5, Jayadeva-defendant No.6, B. Padma- defendant No.7, V.T. Lakshmikantaiah-defendant No.8 and B. Kamala-defendant No.9. B.S.Chandrashekaraiah-father and husband of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 respectively and defendant Nos.2 to 7 are children of one late B.S.Basavaraju and Jayalakshmamma - the defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that all the parties to the suit are the members of Hindu Undivided Family, that suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of said B.S. Basavaraju and that revenue records in respect of the suit schedule properties stand in the name of the first and second defendants. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. That after the demise of B.S. Basavaraju, revenue records had been changed in the name of B. Chandrashekaraiah as he was the elder member of the joint family. After death of B. Chandrashekaraiah on 08.05.1982, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have got khata and revenue records changed in their names. First plaintiff being the minor at that time, had not consented for change of khata. Plaintiffs learnt that defendants colluded with each other and are attempting to alienate the suit schedule properties and they have not even accounted for the proceeds of the joint family properties. When the plaintiffs demanded for partition, the same was refused, constraining them to file the suit.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement admitting the relationship of the parties, but denied that plaintiffs being in the joint possession of the suit schedule properties, also denied the allegation of suit schedule properties and funds being misutilised. It was further contended that some portion of item Nos.2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 18 & 22 of the suit properties has been acquired for Hemavati irrigation project but the compensation has been drawn and same is utilized to discharge tractor loan and the loan outstanding in PLD Bank, SBM, Doddaguni, which was borrowed for the purpose of digging an open well and the remaining amount has been utilized for the maintenance and discharge of handloan borrowed for the marriage expenses of female members of the family. It was further stated that item No.4 was purchased by defendant No.1 under registered deed of sale dated 02.02.1963 out of the amount that had been given to her by her parents, and as such, suit item No.4 is separate streedhan property of defendant No.1 and the compensation that was awarded for acquisition of 1 acre 35 guntas from out of 2 acres 9 guntas of land was withdrawn by defendant No.1 and the same was utilized for her purpose and the plaintiff and defendants have no right over the same. It was further contended that plaint item No.12 which is survey No.15/5 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas does not belong to the family of the plaintiffs and defendants and there exists a Government School in the said land for several years and the