Daughters are entitled to equal shares in ancestral property per the amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT

The present appeal has been made challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2017 made in O.S.No.193 of 2015 on the file of II Additional District Cum Sessions Judge, Tiruppur

2. Heard, Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

2, 3, 5 to 7.

3. Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that respondents 1 to 3 herein had originally instituted a suit seeking for partition over the suit scheduled property on the contention that the same is an ancestral property. The said suit was resisted by the appellant as also the fourth respondent contending that the suit scheduled property had come to the father of the parties by way of a partition between himself and his brothers and therefore, he becomes the absolute owner of the property and by application of the Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff would only be entitled to 1/15th share each and that the appellant and the fourth respondent would be entitled to 6 (1/15th) share.

4. He would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 were also given in marriage by their father expending huge sum of money apart from being given gifts by way of Srithanam. He would submit that with regard to the suit scheduled property, monies have been expended for its development and improvement. He would submit that the Court below without considering all these factors had granted a decree of 3/5th share in the suit scheduled property in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents. He would vehemently contend that the Court below had wholly erred in granting such a decree without considering the law of Succession and had also failed to see the law laid down in that regard both by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

5. Countering his arguments Mr.V.Nicholas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand would contend that the claim for partition of a daughter is no longer res integra and had been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma and Others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1. Hence, he would submit that there is no error in the judgment and decree which is sought to be interfered with. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the appeal.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. Admittedly, the plaintiffs/ respondents 1 to 3 had filed a suit for partition of the property, of the suit scheduled property claiming that its their ancestral property. The nature of the property had not been disputed, but however it had only been contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to only 1/15th share each in the suit scheduled property. The claim of the daughter for equal share in the property pursuant to the amendments to the Hindu Succession Act 2005 has also been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs who are admittedly the sisters of the defendants are entitled to equal share in the property which they had inherited by application of the amended Hindu Succession Act which came into force in the year 2005 and also on the light of the judgment reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order impugned herein and accordingly, the Appeal suit stands dismissed. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petitions stands closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.