Under the amended Hindu Succession Act, daughters are entitled to equal shares in family property as coparceners.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the petitioners-defendant Nos.3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in FDP No.19/2019 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri (for short “the Trial Court”), is directed against the impugned orders dated 25.07.2024 and 19.04.2025 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 by the Trial Court, whereby the applications, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 were allowed by the Trial Court by holding as under:

“ORDER ON IA No . II

The applicants filed in instant application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Sec.151 of C.P.C., seeking permission to come on record as respondent No.3 to 5.

2. SOME AND SUBSTANCES OF THE AFFIDAVIT.

The applicant namely, Chandramma daughter of Late Eshwarappa has sworn the affidavit for herself and and behalf of her sisters/other applicants. She stated that, her brother namely, respondent No.1 filed suit bearing O.S.No.50/2000 before this court for the relief of partition and separate possession against herself, her sisters, mother, brother and second wife of her father. In view of death of her father, she along with other applicants are entitled share, in the share allotted to her father. The final decree proceedings is continuation of original suit and it is filed after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, amendment held in the year, 2005. Thus, the applicants are also got equal share that of a son. The sons and daughters are having equal share in the suit property. Her father has not left any testamentary document in respect of his share and as such his share needs to be allotted to all the legal heirs in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Thus, the modification of decree is necessary. The applicants were defendant No.3 to 5 at the original suit bearing O.S.No.50/2000. Even after, death of father, the petitioners have intentionally not included the as legal heirs of Late Eshwarappa. Thus, the petitioners are necessary parties and be permitted to participate in the proceedings. Hence, prays to allow the application.

3. STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER S AS UNDER:

The petitioners filed statement of objection contending that, the application is bad under law and as such is not maintainable. There is no justification in the affidavit for inmpleadement of parties. The proposed parties have not contested the suit before the trial court and as such no share has been allotted to them. If the application is allowed, it amounts to abuse of process of law as the applicants have not conferred shares in a preliminary decree. They also filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.9427/2022 and unless that matter has been decided the present application needs no consideration. The applicants have already lost their rights under the law of limitation in terms of Article 109/110 of the Limitation Act and as such their application needs to be rejected. If at all the court comes to conclusion that, the applicants are necessary parties, no share can be allotted to them and modification cannot be given into effect. By these contention, the petitioners pray to reject the application.

4. Based on the statements setforth by the proposed petitioners and the respondents, the following points arise for my consideration;

POINTS

1. Whether the presence of respondent No.3 to 5 is necessary to decide the lis of the parties effectually and completely?

2. What order?

5. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the petitioners. Perused the written arguments of the petitioners and also the records. On perusal of the same my findings to aforesaid points as under:

POINTS

Point No.1 : In the Affirmative

Point No.2 : As per the final order for the following,

REASONS

6. Point No.1:- The applicants claimed that, their father died after the preliminary decree. As they are legal heirs of Late father, are necessary parties and they are entitle to share in the share, allotted to him. According