The court confirmed the retrospective application of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, validating earlier sales against daughters' claims to coparcenary rights.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2015 passed in R.A.No.36/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur and the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013 passed in O.S.No.100/2011 by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties owned by one Bayyiga and succeeded by his son Sri. Muniyappa, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs claimed coparcenary rights as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It is contended that defendant No.1 sold ‘B’ schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 21.08.1997 and the said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs only when they demanded for partition of the suit schedule properties about 3 months prior to the date of filing of the suit. It is contended that after the demise of their father in 1981, they have been continuously demanding their share in the suit schedule properties, but defendant No.1 went on postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

3.1. Summons was issued to the defendants.

Despite service of summons, defendant No.1 remained absent and unrepresented. Hence, he was placed exparte.

3.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that he is the purchaser of ‘B’ schedule property. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, since the alienation in favour of defendant No.2 took place in 1997, and the suit was filed in the year 2011. It is contended that the plaintiffs have no share in ‘B’ schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit in respect of ‘B’ schedule property.

3.3. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues.

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties of the plaintiffs?

2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for 1/5^th share each in the suit schedule properties?

3) Whether the 2^nd defendant proves that law of limitation bars the suit?

4) Whether the 2^nd defendant proves that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule properties?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties?

6) What order or decree?

3.4. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.4 was examined as PW.1 and marked 36 documents as Exs.P1 to 36. On the other hand, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 and marked 22 documents as Exs.D1 to 22. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, answered issues No.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative, issues No.3 in the affirmative, issues No.4 in the negative, issues No.5 as below mentioned, issues No.6 as per the final order.

3.5. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in part with costs. It is held that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5^th share each over ‘A’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, and defendant No.1 is entitled to the remaining 1/5^th share. It is held that the plaintiffs are entitled