Daughters are coparceners by birth with rights equal to sons under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005, regardless of whether the father was alive at the time the amendment came into force.

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HAVERI IN R.A.NO.60/2011 DATED:10.07.2012 BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE, SAVANUR IN O.S. NO.3/2009 DATED 03/09/2011; COST OF THE THIS APPEAL AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

Even though the appeal is at the stage of admission, as per the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is heard on merits.

2. This is the appeal filed by claimant/plaintiff under Section 100 C.P.C. praying for modification of the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2012 in R.A.No.60/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Haveri and for confirmation of the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2011 passed in O.S.No.3/2009 on the file of Civil Judge, Savanur.

3. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. Plaintiffs have filed the suit before trial Court praying for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for such other reliefs.

5. After recording evidence and hearing both sides, the trial Court has decreed the suit and granted 1/4th share each to plaintiffs in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, both defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed appeal in R.A.No.60/2011.

7. After hearing arguments, the First Appellate Court has modified the decree and granted 1/8th share each to the plaintiffs on the ground that the original propositus died in the year 1976 and thus, has granted 1/8th share based on notional partition and not considered the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment), 2005 (in short, ‘ the Act, 2005’).

8. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff No.1/appellant has preferred the present second appeal.

9. During pendency of this appeal, plaintiff No.1 died and her legal representatives are brought on record.

2. The substantial question of law arose in this case is that:

“Whether the share granted by the Appellate Court to appellant is in accordance with the principles of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1?”

3. Finding on this point is in negative for the following reasons:

4. On perusal of the judgments passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court and as per the submission of learned counsel for the legal representatives of appellant Sri M.H. Patil, the facts of the case are that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 are sisters and defendant No.1 is their sister-in-law. One Basappa was the original propositus who died on 13.06.1976 leaving behind his wife, three daughters and a son. Later, his wife also died; then, the son of original propositus died leaving behind his wife as his legal heir (defendant No.1). It is an admitted fact that suit schedule properties bearing R.S.Nos.154/1A measuring 30 guntas and 154/1B measuring 5 acres, 9 guntas are the ancestral properties of father of plaintiffs and defendant No.2-Sri Basappa. He inherited those properties from his father. After his death, it is succeeded and inherited by plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and husband of defendant No.1- Shankarappa Mudagalla. After death of Shankarappa Mudagalla, his wife-defendant No.1 succeeded to his share.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., (2020) 9 SCC 1 held in paragraph No.129 that a coparcener need not be alive on the date of commencement of ‘the Act, 2005’. The relevant portion of said judgment reads as follows:

“129. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:

(i) The provisions cont