The court reaffirmed that daughters have equal rights as sons in ancestral properties, emphasizing the applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

CAV JUDGMENT

The present Regular Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2018, in R.A.No.2/2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Shikaripura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the first appellate Court’) and the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017, passed in O.S.No.15/2014, passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., at Shikaripura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs/appellants before the Courts below and the respondent herein is the defendants/respondents before the Courts below.

3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per the rankings before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.15/2014, passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., at Shikaripura for the relief of partition and separate possession seeking their 1/6^th share over the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. 5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and the husband of the defendant No.1, Sri Narasimhappa, are the children of one Sri Mukundappa. The defendant No.3 is the wife of said Mukundappa. Both Mukundappa and Narasimhappa are dead. The defendant No.2 is a minor under the care and custody of her mother, the defendant No.1 is her guardian. It is further averred that one Veeramallappa was the founder of the family and the suit schedule properties had fallen to his share under a partition among the family members. After the death of the founder, the father of the plaintiffs, Sri Mukundappa, inherited the suit properties along with his wife, son, and daughters, thereby constituting a Hindu Joint Family, and they were enjoying the same jointly. After the demise of Mukundappa, the husband of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 managed the family affairs and consequently, the khatha of the properties was transferred in the name of the defendant No.3, being one of the legal heirs.

6. The plaintiffs further contended that the defendant No.1 failed to disclose the true income and profits derived from the suit schedule lands, and they suspected that she was misleading the income and not looking after the welfare of the family. Despite repeated demands, including a specific demand made on 02.01.2014 for partition of their legitimate share, the defendant No.1 refused to carve out their shares. Hence, the plaintiffs have instituted the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.

7. Per contra, in response to the summons issued by this Court, defendants No.1 to 3 entered appearance through counsel, and defendant No.1 filed a written statement which was adopted by defendant No.2, while defendant No.3 did not file a separate written statement. Defendant No.1 admitted the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants but denied the other plaint averments, including the allegation that the suit properties were jointly enjoyed by the plaintiffs and defendants, or that after the death of Mukundappa, the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant were managing the welfare of the family without disclosing income. It was specifically contended that such allegations of misusing or concealing income are false, and that there exists no cause of action for filing the present suit.

8. It was further contended that though the suit properties stand in the name of defendant No.3, defendants No.1 and 3 are not residing together, and after the death of her husband, defendant No.1 has been residing in her parental home. O