The court upheld the right of daughters to equal shares in ancestral properties under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, confirming that failure to file a written statement does not vitiate a decree supported by sufficient evidence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 96 and Order XLI Rule 1 - Partition and separate possession of ancestral joint family properties - The trial Court decreed the suit, granting 1/6th share to each of the parties, and determining that the joint development agreement is not binding - Despite opportunities, defendants failed to present their defense and did not file written statements - Judicial discretion upheld regarding failure to file written statements and the finality of oral and documentary evidence, confirming ancestral property status. (Paras 1-23)

(B) Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 - Daughters' rights to equal share in co-parcenary properties established - The judgment reinforced the principle of equal rights for daughters under Hindu law. (Paras 12-23)

Facts of the case:
The appellant contested the trial Court's decision regarding the partition of ancestral properties following the death of the plaintiff's father, claiming insufficient opportunity to present their case, while the plaintiff asserted her rightful share.

Findings of Court:
The trial Court found the properties to be ancestral and held that the joint development agreement was not enforceable against the plaintiff due to lack of consent.

Issues: The primary issues included whether the trial Court's judgment allowed the plaintiff's entitlement to the share, and if the appellants were denied an adequate opportunity to defend.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed that the trial Court's ruling stood valid and justified, citing the failure of the defendants to engage with the suit and the well-established rights of daughters in inheritance matters post the amendment.

Result: Regular First Appeals dismissed.

CAV JUDGMENT

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

RFA.No.200106/2016 is preferred by defendant No.3 and RFA.No.200083/2016 by defendant No.6, assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2016 in O.S No.188/2014, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court” for short).

2. Suit seeking partition and separate possession and the counterclaim filed by defendant Nos.4 and 5 was decreed by the trial Court, awarding plaintiff, defendant Nos.4 and 5 each 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties. The trial Court further declared that the joint development agreement dated 23.08.2013 is not binding upon the share of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.4 and 5.

3. The suit properties are described as under:

1. “The House bearing Corporation No.10-2/80 measuring 321 Sq.Meters. (3486 Sq Feet) with CTS No.3697, sheet No.65 Division No.1 situated at Sangameshwar Colony, Gulbarga Bonded as under.

East : Plot No.2

West : Govt. Road.

North : Govt. Drain.

Suoth : 30 feet wide Road.

2. The land bearing Sy.No.13/2 Khata No.83 measuring 11 acres 32 Guntas with RA of Rs.12-04 PS, situated at Godrihal Tq Shorapur (Surpur) Dist Yadgir.

3. The Land bearing Sy No.55/Aa Khata No.83 measuring the extent of 2 acres 2 Guntas out of measuring 6 acre 5 Guntas situated at village Godrihal Tq Shorapur (Surpur) Dist Yadgir.”

4. The family pedigree is as under:

5. The plaintiff, who is the daughter of deceased Bheemrao (Bheemsenrao), instituted a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the brothers and defendants Nos.4 and 5 are her sisters. It is averred that the suit schedule properties were owned by deceased Bheemrao, who passed away on 11.08.2008 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 as his legal heirs. It is averred that suit schedule property i.e., item No.1 house bearing No.10-2/80 situated in CTS No.3697 is the self acquired property of deceased Bheemrao and he has purchased the same out of his own income. Further, the other landed properties are claimed to be the ancestral properties, acquired by Bheemrao through inheritance and succession. It is averred that after demise of Bheemrao, defendant Nos.1 to 3 mutated their names in the revenue records and executed a joint development agreement dated 23.08.2013 with defendant No.6, depriving the plaintiff of her lawful share. Further, it is averred that defendant No.6 thereafter proceeded with the construction on item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. It is averred that there is no partition among the legal heirs and that she and the other legal heirs are entitled for 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties and for declaration that the joint development agreement is not binding upon her.

6. Defendants entered appearance, however defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 did not file their written statement. Defendant No.4, the sister of the plaintiff filed written statement with the counterclaim, supporting the plaintiff’s contention that the suit properties are the joint family properties and claiming her 1/6^th share. Defendant No.5 another sister also filed written statement with a counterclaim similarly asserting her entitlement to 1/6^th share.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues:

1. “Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.4 and 5 are entitled for partition of their share in the suit properties?

2. Whether the agreement bearing document No.5953/2013-14 dated 23/8/2013 is not binding on the plaintiff, defendant No.4 and 5?

3. Whether the plaintiff, defendant No.5 and 4 are entitled for the relief sought?

4. What order or decree?”

8. The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that:

i. the suit schedule properties are the Ancestral Joint Family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5.

ii. the plaintiff and defendants are entitled for 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties and the joint ag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18121

The court upheld the right of daughters to equal shares in ancestral properties under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, confirming that failure to file a written statement does not vitiate a decree supported by sufficient evidence.

Cases Referred (2)