Daughters have equal rights as coparceners in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession Act, affirming equal share allocation in favor of daughters.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. The suit was filed by the sisters against their brothers claiming that the suit schedule properties are an ancestral properties. The Trial Court having considered the material and record comes to the conclusion that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as well as the properties concerned. On perusal of the records, it discloses that notional partition was granted in the original suit and the same has been challenged in the appeal by the very plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court having considered the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Others wherein it is held that the daughter is also entitled for the share that of a son whether the father is alive or not and the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that all are equally entitled for the partition and daughters have also been recognized as coparceners along with the sons. Having considered the case of the Vineeta Sharma referred supra, the First Appellate Court granted the share equally. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the First Appellate Court in modifying the judgment of the trial Court.

3. The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that allotting of share equally by the First Appellate Court is not correct and this Court has to frame substantive question of law that the First Appellate Court committed an error in relying upon the judgment of Vineeta Sharma’s case referred above holding the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6^th share and not justified in modifying the same since the Trial Court granted only 1/24^th share to plaintiffs in view of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act by way of notional partition keeping in mind that late Govindaiah was not alive on 09.09.2005. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the appellants that modification is not in accordance with law. The said submission cannot be accepted. The counsel for the respondents also brought to notice of this Court that in view of the judgment ofVineeta Sharma referred supra, the First Appellate Court rightly modified the judgment of the Trial Court and there cannot be any national partition and the parties are sisters and brothers are also not in dispute and hence, they are equally entitled for a share in the property left by the propositus. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantive question of law as contented by the counsel for the appellants.

4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.