IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

R.F.A.No.1914/2007 c/w R.F.A.No.756/2008 & R.F.A.

Crob. No.28/2010

In R.F.A.No.1914/2007:

BETWEEN:

1. Sri Madan Raj

S/o K.S.Mani, Aged about 40 years 2. Sri Praveen Kumar

S/o K.S.Mani, Aged about 34 years Both are r/at No.5, Damodar Mudaliar Street Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008 ...APPELLANTS

(By SriT.N. Raghupathy a/w Sri K.Somasekhar Reddy, Advs.)

AND:

1. Smt.Parvathi

D/o K.G.Keshavan W/o G.Ranganathan Aged about 62 years R/at No.423, MIG, 4th Link 5th Main, MKB Nagar

- 2 -

Vysarpadi, Chennai-600 039

2. Smt.V.Emayavalli

D/o K.G.Keshavan W/o G.Vaseegaran Aged about 54 years R/at No.20, K.B.Dasan Road Teynampet, Chennai-600 018

3. Sri B.Ramadas

S/o Late M.Babu, Aged about 56 years R/at No.6/11, SNT Cross Nalla Road, Gupta Layout, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008

4. Sri G.Gnanasekaran

S/o E.Govindaraju Aged about 64 years

5. Sri G.Satish Kumar

S/o E.Gnanasekaran, Major Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are r/at No.C-7, Breeze Apartments TNHB Colony, Jayaram Extension Chennai-600 041

6. G.Devalatha

D/o E.Gnanasekaran Aged about 35 years

7. G.Prathiba

D/o E.Govindaraju Aged about 31 years Respondents Nos.6 & 7 are r/at No.12/1, Sathyanarayana Temple Street 5th Cross, Guptha Layout

- 3 -

Ulsoor, Bangalore-08

8. Smt.Vijaya

W/o Late K.Shiva Subramani @ K.S.Mani, Aged about 57 years, R/at No.5, Damodaran Mudaliar Street Ulsoor, Bangalore-8 ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri Vishnu Hegde, Adv. for M/s Lex Scientia for R-1 & 2;

Sri A.Y.N.Gupta, Adv. for R-3; Sri Ranga Associates, Adv. for R-4, 6 & 7;

R-5 & 8 Served.) This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.6980/1991 on the file of the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession. In R.F.A.No.756/2008:

BETWEEN:

1. Smt.R.Parvathi D/o K.G.Kesavan W/o G.Ranganathan Aged about 62 years No.423, MIG, 4th Links 5th Main, MKB Nagar Vyshyapadi, Chennai-600 039

2. Smt.V.Emayavalli

Aged about 54 years, D/o K.G.Kesavan W/o G.Vaseegaran R/at No.20, K.B.Dasan Road Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 ...APPELLANTS

(By Sri Vishnu Hegde, Adv. for M/s Lex Scientia.)

- 4 -

AND:

1. Sri K.G.Kesavan

(Now dead) S/o Late Govindaraj Pillai No.5, Old No.36 Damodar Mudaliar Street Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008 (The 1st Plaintiff dead & Rep. by Defendant No.1 & Plaintiff Nos.1 & 2)

2. Sri K.Shiva Subramani

@ K.S.Mani (Now dead) No.5, Old No.36, Damodar Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008 (The Defendant No.1 died Rep. by Defendant Nos.32, 33 & 38.)

3. Sri B.Ramdas

S/o Late M.Babu Aged about 61 years No.6/11, SNT Cross Nalla Road Guptha Layout Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008

4. Sri Madanraj

S/o K.S.Mani, Aged about 44 years 5. Sri Praveen Kumar

S/o S.Mani, Aged about 38 years Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are r/at No.5 Damodaram Mudaliar Street Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008

6. Sri G.Gnashekaran

S/o Govindaraj, Aged about 63 years

- 5 -

7. Sri G.Devalatha

S/o Gnashekaran Aged about 43 years

8. Sri G.Sathiskumar

S/o Gnashekaran Aged about 35 years

9. Smt.G.Prathibha

S/o Gnashekaran Aged about 33 years The Respondent Nos.6 to 9 are r/at No.C.7, Breeze Apartment TNHB Colony, Jayaram Extension Chennai-600041

10. Smt.Vijaya

W/o Late K.Shiva Subramani Aged about 61 years, No.10, Damodar Mudaliar Street 1st Cross, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008

11. Mr.K.Ramachandran

S/o Sri Kullakarni, Aged about 59 years, No.39/3, Car Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore -08

12. Smt.Malini G.,

W/o P.Prakash Aged about 40 years, No.34, Yellamman Koli Street Ulsoor, Bangalore-08

13. Mrs.Shilpa

W/o Mr.Thivahar Arthur Aged about 33 years, No.339/358, Ground Floor,

- 6 -

New Thippasandra Main Road, Bangalore -75

14. Sri Khetha Ram Choyal A.,

S/o Late Amed Ramji Aged about 30 years, No.338/41, Next To Vijaya Bank New Thippasandra Main Road Bangalore -75

15. Sri V.Ravi

S/o Late Mr.Vasudeva Redy Aged about 48 years No.1, Gurumurthy Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore -08

16. Sri Anand Nagaraja

S/o Nagaraja, Aged about 33 years, No.2363, Sanjeevini Nagar, Sahakarnagar Post, Bangalore -560 092.

17. Smt.B.Shantha Kumari

Aged about 54 years D/o Late Bhaktha Vastsala Naidu No.2, Shivashakthi Nilaya, Damodara Mudaliar Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008 ...RESPONDENTS

(By Sri T.N.Raghupathy a/w Sri K.Somashekar Reddy, Advs.

for R-4, 5 & 10, Sri A.Y.N.Gupta, Adv. for R-3,

Sri N.G.Satish Chander, Adv. for R-6 to 9; R-11, 14 & 15 are Served,

Sri Dhananjaya Joshi Associates, Advs. for R-12 & 17; PR & DR Associates, Advs. for R-12 & 13;

Sri Chaitanya Hegde, Adv. for R-16.)

- 7 -

This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.6980/1991 on the file of the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession by holding that the appellants herein are entitled to 1/8th share each in all the suit schedule items. In R.F.A. Crob. No.28/2010:

BETWEEN:

1. Sri Madhan Raj

S/o K.S.Mani, Aged about 44 years 2. Sri Praveen Kumar

S/o K.S.Mani, Aged about 38 years Both are r/at No.5, Damodar Mudaliar Street Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008 ...CROSS OBJECTORS

(By Sri T.N.Raghupathy, a/w Sri Somashekara Reddy, Advs.)

AND:

1. Smt.Parvathi

D/o K.G.Keshavan W/o G.Ranganathan Aged about 62 years R/at No.423, MIG, 4th Links 5th Main, MKB Nagar Vysarpadi, Chennai-600 039

2. Smt.V.Emayavalli

Aged about 54 years, D/o K.G.Keshavan W/o G.Vaseegaran R/at No.20, K.B.Dasan Road

- 8 -

Teynampet, Chennai-600018 3. Sri B.Ramadas

S/o Late M.Babu Aged about 61 years R/at No.6/11, SNT Cross, Nalla Road, Gupta Layout, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008

4. Sri G.Gnanasekaran

S/o E.Govindaraju Aged about 63 years R/at No.C-7, Breeze Apartments TNHB Colony, Jayaram Extension Chennai-600041

5. G.Devalatha

D/o E.Gnanasekaran Aged about 43 years R/at No.C.7, Breeze Apartment, TNHB Colony, Jayaram Extension Chennai -600041

6. Sri G.Satish Kumar

S/o E.Gnanasekaran Aged about 35 years R/at No.C-7, Breeze Apartments TNHB Colony, Jayaram Extension Chennai-600041

7. G.Prathiba

D/o Gnanashekaran Aged about 33 years R/at No.C-7, Breeze Apartments TNHB Colony, Jayaram Extension Chennai-600041

8. Smt.Vijaya

W/o Late K.Shiva Subramani @ K.S.Mani, Aged about 61 years

- 9 -

R/at No.10, 1st Cross, Damodaran Mudaliar Street Ulsoor, Bangalore-08 ...Respondents

This RFA Crob. is filed under Order XLI, Rule-22 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.6980/1991 on the file of the XXII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, partly decreeing the suit for the partition and separate possession. These RFAs & RFA Crob. coming on for final hearing, this day, N.Kumar J, Delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Defendant Nos.32 and 33 have preferred this Regular

First Appeal challenging that portion of the Judgment and

decree where the court below declined to grant relief in

respect of item No.1, 2 and 3 mentioned in the written

statement. Plaintiff No.2 and 3 also have filed an appeal

claiming equal share in the schedule properties. Therefore

both these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by

this common Judgment.

2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred

to as in the original suit.

- 10 -

3. First plaintiff is the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3.

First defendant is the only son of first plaintiff. Defendants 2

to 30 are all tenants in respect of portions of suit schedule

property. 31st defendant is an agreement holder.

Defendants 32 and 33 are the sons of first defendant.

Defendants 34 to 37 are alienees. 38th defendant is the wife

of first defendant.

4. The case of the plaintiffs is first plaintiff’s

grandfather late Sri.Kandaswamy Pillai purchased

immovable property bearing No.26, Gurumurthy Lane,

Ulsoor, Bangalore under a registered sale deed dated

02.08.1987. Said Sri.Kandaswamy Pillai expired in the year

1905. After his death his son Sri.K.Govindaraj Pillai

succeeded to the said estate. On his death first defendant

inherited the property. First plaintiff father late

Sri.Govindaraj Pillai expired in the year 1950. During his life

time he had acquired the suit schedule properties which are

more particularly described in Annexures B, C, D and E.

The suit schedule properties are all joint and undivided

properties of late Sri.Kandaswamy Pillai and late

- 11 -

Sri.Govindaraj Pillai. Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the

only legal claimants to the suit schedule properties.

Therefore they are entitled to 1/4th share each. Defendants

2 to 30 are all tenants. They are paying rents regularly to

the plaintiffs upto 1992 thereafter their relationship

strained. The first defendant is collecting rents from

defendants 2 to 30. Therefore all the tenants were

impleaded. The corporation khatha of schedule properties

stands in the name of first plaintiff. He has paid taxes due

to the corporation. Though first defendant is collecting the

rents he has not paid the corporation taxes. As the first

defendant was attempting to alienate the property and create

third party interest the plaintiffs were constrained to file suit

for partition and separate possession. First plaintiff died

during the pendency of the suit leaving behind plaintiffs 2

and 3 and first defendant to succeed to the estate. He

executed a Will bequeathing the property in favour of

plaintiffs 2 and 3 alone. Therefore they are also entitled to

the share of first plaintiff. Therefore they sought for partition

- 12 -

and separate possession of their legitimate share in the

plaint schedule properties.

5. After service of summons first defendant filed his

written statement. He did not dispute the relationship set

out in the plaint. He contended that plaintiffs 2 and 3 are

the married sisters and that their marriages were performed

in the year 1964 and 1973 respectively and they are living in

their marital houses. Plaintiff No.1 passed away on

23.9.1992. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are not the members of co-

parcenary. They have no right to maintain the suit nor claim

any share in the schedule property. They admit the

purchase of `A’ schedule property by Sri.Kandaswamy Pillai

and schedule B, C, D and E properties by Sri.Govindaraj

Pillai. They admit that the schedule properties are all co-

parcenary joint family properties. However they denied the

plaintiffs claim for 1/4th share in all the properties. Then

they have referred to the tenants who have vacated the

premises and therefore he sought for dismissal of the suit.

After plaint was amended they also filed additional written

statement denying the execution of the Will set up by

- 13 -

plaintiffs in respect of property belonging to first plaintiff.

Defendant No.31 has filed written statement setting up his

claim for the property which is claimed under agreement of

sale dated 11.06.1993. Defendants 32 and 33 also filed

separate written statement reiterating what their father has

stated in the written statement. They admit that all the

plaint schedule properties are all co-parcenary joint family

properties. As plaintiffs 2 and 3 are married daughters they

ceased to be members of the joint family and they are not

entitled to any share in the joint family properties. They also

deny execution of the Will by first plaintiff in favour of

plaintiffs 2 and 3. They have specifically pleaded that the

grandfather of defendants 32 and 33 Sri.K.G.Keshavan

purchased three properties bearing Sy.No.10, 12/1 and 34

(new No.13) situated at Satynarayana Temple Street, 4th

Cross, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560008 which are more

particularly described to the schedule to written statement

and referred to as “written statement schedule property” in

the name of plaintiff No.2 Smt.R.Parvathi and

Smt.Hemavathi, the other daughter of Sri.K.G.Keshavan.

- 14 -

Property bearing No.10 was purchased in the name of

Smt.Parvathi under registered sale deed dated 02.02.1972.

Similarly property bearing No.12/1 was purchased in the

name of Smt.Hemavathi under registered sale deed dated

10.02.1978 .

6. The third property bearing No.34 (New No.13) was

purchased in the name of Smt.Hemavathi under registered

sale deed dated 02.02.1972. These properties were

purchased by late K.G.Keshavan from out of the Joint

Family Funds and as such those properties are also required

to be included in the plaint schedule as joint family

properties. Otherwise, the suit for partial partition is liable to

be dismissed. The accounts maintained by Sri.K.G.Keshavan

shows that he used to mix up his salary income with the

rents collected by him from the suit schedule properties.

The salary received by him was not sufficient for the

maintenance of the family. The amount given to him for sale

consideration was collected in respect of the suit schedule

properties. Therefore as the properties were purchased from

- 15 -

and out of the Joint family nucleus, they are required to be

included at the time of partition.

` 7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial

Court framed the following seven issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit

schedule properties are the joint family

properties of the plaintiffs and defendant

No.1?

(2) Whether they further prove that they are in

possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule property along with defendant No.1?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition

and separate possession of their legitimate

share?

(4) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the

suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary

parties?

(5) Whether there is cause of action to file the

suit?

(6) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the

suit is not valued properly and court fee paid

is not proper?

- 16 -

(7) What Decree or Order?

8. The plaintiffs in order to substantiate their claim

examined G.Vaseegaran, husband of the 3rd plaintiff as

P.W.1 and they also examined two witnesses K.Mohan and

M.Shantha as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. They produced

38 documents, which are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P38. On

behalf of defendants, one Madan Raj was examined as D.W.1

and B.Ramdas was examined as D.W.2 and they have

produced 15 documents, which are marked as Ex.D1 to

Ex.D15.

9. The Trial Court, in the course of evidence, recast

the issues as under:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit

schedule properties are the joint family

properties of the plaintiffs and defendant

No.1?

(2) Whether they further prove that they are in

possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property along with defendant No.1?

- 17 -

(3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition

and separate possession of their legitimate

share?

(4) Whether defendant No.1 proves that the suit

suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties?

(5) Whether there is cause of action to file the

suit?

(6) Whether defendant No.1 proves that the suit is

not valued properly and court fee paid is not

proper?

(7) What Order or Decree?

Additional Issues:

(1) Do the plaintiffs 2 and 3 prove that Will dated

22.11.1991 executed by plaintiff No.1 in their favour

is valid?

(2) Do defendants 32 and 33 prove that written

statement schedule are the joint family properties as

alleged?

10. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the aforesaid

oral and documentary evidence on record held that the

plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule properties are

- 18 -

the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant

No.1. They further proved that they are in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with

defendant No.1. As the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were married

daughters on the day the suit was filed, the Court held that

the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to 1/8th share in each of

the suit schedule items. It also held that the suit is also bad

for non-joinder of necessary parties. It also recorded a

categorical finding that plaintiffs 2 and 3 have failed to prove

the due execution of Will dated 22.11.1991, said to have

been executed by their father, plaintiff No.1. Further, it also

held that the written statement schedule properties are not

joint family properties as alleged by defendants 32 and 33

and therefore, they are not entitled to any share in the said

properties.

11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the

defendants 32 and 33 have preferred this R.F.A.

No.1914/2007 challenging the finding of the Trial Court that

the written statement schedule properties are not the joint

family properties and that they are not entitled to a share

- 19 -

therein. The plaintiffs have preferred R.F.A. No.756/2008

challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court

denying them equal share in all the plaint schedule

properties along with their brother the 1st defendant.

12. The learned counsel for defendants 31 and 32

Sri.T.N.Raghupathy, submitted that the evidence on record

clearly establishes that the written statement schedule

properties were purchased in the name of the daughters by

the 1st plaintiff out of the joint family nucleus and therefore,

it is a joint family property. As the suit is one for partition of

the joint family properties, plaintiffs ought to have included

the said property as otherwise the suit for partition is liable

to be dismissed on the ground that all the properties are not

included in the schedule. Therefore, the defendants wanted

to include the same adding in the written statement and the

Trial Court was not justified in granting a share to them.

Even otherwise, he submitted that in view of Section 4(3)(b)

of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, there is

no prohibition for initiation of legal proceedings for securing

a share in the property though it stands in the name of the

- 20 -

daughters and therefore, he submits that to that extent, the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court requires to be set-

aside and the defendants 1, 32 and 33 are to be given equal

share in the said written statement schedule properties.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

plaintiffs 2 and 3, Sri.Vishnu Hegde, submitted that as there

was no partition in the family by way of a registered partition

deed in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu

Succession Act, even a married daughter is conferred the

status of coparcenor and therefore, she is entitled to equal

share in all the plaint schedule properties and therefore, he

submits that the decree granting share is to be modified.

14. In fact defendants 31 and 32 have filed cross-

objection to the appeal filed by the plaintiffs contending that

on the death of Govindaraja Pillai his only son K.G.Keshavan

became the sole surviving partner and therefore others have

no right in the property.

- 21 -

15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival

contentions, the points that arise for our consideration are

as under:

(1) Whether defendant Nos. 1, 32 and 33 are

entitled to any share in the written statement

schedule properties, which according to them

is joint family properties?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are entitled to

equal share with the 1st defendant in the

plaint schedule properties?

Point No.1

16. The facts are not in dispute. There is no partition

in the family after the death of Govindaraja Pillai as he died

leaving behind K.G.Keshavan, the only son. He became a

sole surviving partner. Keshavan had a son by name

K.S.Mani, the 1st defendant, three daughters Parvathi – the

2nd plaintiff, Hemavathi, who is dead and Emayavalli – the

3rd plaintiff. With the birth of a son K.G.Keshavan and

K.S.Mani became coparcenors. It is not in dispute that

K.G.Keshava was employed in the Bangalore City

Corporation. It is also not in dispute that item No.1 of the

- 22 -

schedule property has number of tenements, which were

given on rent to various tenants and the rents were being

collected. Keshavan performed the marriages of the 2nd

plaintiff Parvathi and Hemavathi in the year 1964 and 1973

respectively. After their marriage, he purchased item No.1 of

the written statement schedule property in the name of

Smt.Parvathi on 02.02.1972 as per Ex.D1. The

consideration for the purchase is from Keshavan as is clear

from the recital in the sale deed itself. Similarly, he

purchased the second item of the written statement schedule

property in the name of his daughter Smt.Hemavathi on

02.02.1972 as per Ex.D12, for which consideration has

flown from Keshavan as is clear from the recitals therein. He

also purchased item No.3 of the written statement schedule

property in the name of his another daughter Smt.Parvathi.

The question for consideration is:

When these three properties were purchased by

the father in the name of his married daughters,

though the consideration has flown from him, can

it be said to be a joint family property?

- 23 -

17. It is well settled that though only the male

members constitute coparcenary but in the case of joint

family, even the daughters are members of the joint family.

If any property is purchased in the name of any joint family

member, the presumption is that the property belongs to

him or her however, it is a rebuttable presumption. The

person claiming it to be a joint family property could always

adduce evidence to show that there was sufficient joint

family nucleus and from the said joint family nucleus, the

said property is purchased and notwithstanding the fact that

the property stands in the name of any member of the joint

family, the said property is treated as a joint family property

and all members will get a legitimate share in the said

property. Such a member in whose name the property is

purchased, should be a member of the joint family. If a

property is purchased in the name of a person, who is not a

member of the joint family even though the consideration

has flown from the joint family funds, the said property

cannot be treated as a joint family property.

- 24 -

18. In the instant case, admittedly, Smt.Parvathi and

Smt.Hemavathi, the two daughters were got married in the

year 1964 and 1973 respectively, by their father

K.G.Keshavan. With their marriage, they ceased to be the

members of the joint family. It is after their marriage,

Keshavan purchased the properties in their names as per

Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Ex.D12. The consideration also has been

paid by him. Once properties are purchased in their name,

the properties belong to them exclusively. Merely because

the father paid the consideration or the consideration was

paid out of the joint family funds would not make any

difference in law. This is precisely what the Trial Court has

held and on that ground, it has declined to grant any relief to

defendants 32 and 33. Therefore, we do not find any

justification to interfere with the said finding of fact recorded

by the Trial Court, which is also in accordance with law.

19. Insofar as the contention that in view of Section

4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, a

claim can be put forth in respect of the property standing in

the name of a person, who has not paid the consideration is

- 25 -

concerned, we do not find any substance. What Section 4(3)

of the said Act postulates is, the prohibition contained in

sub-section(1) and (2) of Section 4 has no application to a

case where the person in whose name the property is held is

a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity

and the property is held for the benefit of another person, for

whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such

capacity, then the said prohibition is not attracted.

20. In the instant case, in the written statement filed,

there is no whisper about the daughters holding this

property as a trustee or standing in a fiduciary capacity as

members of the joint family. No evidence is also adduced.

Therefore, the Trial Court did not go into the said question.

In the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the said

provision has no application. No specific plea is taken in the

written statement by defendants 32 and 33 and also there is

no evidence on record in support of such a case.

Point No.2

21. No doubt there is no registered partition in the

family. Section 6 as amended by the Amendment act, 2005

- 26 -

conferred right of married daughters and also the status of

coparcenors and they are held to be entitled to a share equal

to that of the son. The said question was raised before this

Court earlier and it is held that such a right is conferred on

the married daughters, who are born subsequent to 1956

Act. The said Act is not applicable to persons, who are born

prior to the Act, as a right, which is not conferred under the

original Act cannot be conferred by way of an amendment of

the said Act. Therefore, when admittedly, these two

daughters were born prior to 1956 i.e., prior to the coming

into force of the Hindu Succession Act, they are not entitled

for the benefit of the status of coparcenors and they are not

entitled to equal share. By virtue of the amended Section, as

their father had died leaving behind a female heir, they are

entitled to equal share with the sons in the property to be

allotted to the father. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly

granted 1/8th share to each of the daughters. The order

passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with law and do

not call for any interference. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons

we pass the following order:

- 27 -

22. Both the appeals and the cross-objection are

dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBN/SPS