The ruling reinforced that under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, daughters have equal rights to inheritance, impacting claims for partition among co-owners.

JUDGMENT

This regular second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.349/2009 on the file of III Additional District Court, Kollam, which in turn, arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.50/1997 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Kollam.

2. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Suit was one for partition.

(The parties would be referred as per their status before the trial court).

3. First defendant is the brother of plaintiffs 1 and 2. Plaintiffs 3 to 5 are the children of the deceased sister of plaintiffs by name Ponnamma. Parties belong to Hindu Vannan community. They are following Hindu Makkathayam Law by which parents and sons and daughters are having equal right. The plaint schedule property having an extent of 49.5 cents originally belong to Chathavu, the grandfather of plaintiffs, deceased Ponnamma and also the first defendant. Chathavu obtained the property as per sale deed No.938/1102 of S.R.O, Chathannur. Father of plaintiffs, deceased Ponnamma and the first defendant is Chathan Nanan who married Myly first. Since no issues were born out of that wedlock, he married Bhagawati, sister of Myly. Appellants, the first defendant as well as Ponnamma were born to Chathan Nanan out of Bhagawati. Chathavu executed document No.1326/1106 in favour of Myly with respect to plaint schedule property by which the right, possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property during her lifetime was given to her with a right to create encumbrance upto Rs.200/- over the said property. Accordingly, Myly was in enjoyment and possession of the plaint schedule property and was residing in the building therein till her death in the year 1978. After her death, plaint schedule property was devolved upon the plaintiffs and the first defendant. Nanan died in the year 1948. His father Chathavu pre-deceased him. Bhagavati died in the year 1985. After the death of Myly, plaintiffs and first defendant were in possession and enjoyment of schedule property. The building in the plaint schedule property was lying vacant. In March, 1994, the son-in- law of the first defendant by name Narayanan Kutty without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs started a Dental Mechanical Workshop in the building which was objected by the plaintiffs and they demanded partition of the schedule property. First defendant was not amenable for the same. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled to ¼ share each and plaintiffs 3 to 5 together are entitled to get ¼ share of late Ponnamma from the schedule property. First defendant is also entitled to get ¼ share. From March, 1994 onwards, first defendant is taking income from the plaint schedule property without giving share of income to the plaintiffs. So, they claim mesne profit from March 1994 onwards.

4. Original defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship between the parties. Actual name of the grandfather is Sasthavu and not Chathavu. The marriage of Nanan initially with Myly and thereafter with Bhagavati is admitted. Even after the execution of document No.1326/1106 in favour of Myly, jenm right of property vests with the family of Sasthavu. The defendant has been residing with Myly from his childhood onwards. Sasthavu, his only son Nanan and his family members belong to Pandi Vannan community and they are members of Hindu undivided family following Mithakshara law. After the death of Sasthavu, the property devolved upon Nanan as his sole legal heir and he has been in possession of the plaint schedule property subject to the right of Myly as per document No.1326/1106. After the death of Nanan in 1948, plaint schedule property devolved upon first defendant as the sole male child and hence he is in possession of plaint schedule property and after the death of Myly, he got absolute right over the property. It is denied that plaintiffs inherited the property after the death of Myly. Even if the plaintiffs have any right over the plaint schedule property it was lost by adverse