JUDGMENT :- Defendant No. 2 has filed this First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 27-2-1991 and 15-3-1991 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sonepur in Title Suit No. 18 of 1982. 2. The facts as narrated in the records are as follows : Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed the suit claiming ¼th share out of the suit properties. He has attached a map showing the portion where the suit house has been constructed by her. Plaintiff's case is that, Jagatram was the common ancestor of the parties. He was owner in possession of the properties. After his death, Byasadev succeeded to the suit properties. Byasadev is the father of plaintiff. He died leaving behind defendant No. 1 his widow and two daughters, i.e., plaintiff and defendant No. 2, as his legal heirs. Other defendants are coparceners. In the year 1971 while the father of the plaintiff was alive, she out of her own income constructed the house on the suit land with consent of her parents and resided in that house. The map showing the portion of the land on which the house stands has been exhibited as Ext. A. She spent nearly Rs. 8,000/- for construction of the house. Jagatram died in the year 1971. Byasadev died in the year 1980. After the death of Byasadev, plaintiff demanded for partition of the suit house claiming exclusive share. Since defendants did not agree to the said proposition, plaintiff filed the suit. All the defendants have been set ex parte except defendant No. 2 who contested the suit by filing her written statement. In her written statement, while she admitted the relationship between the parties, she denied other averments made by the plaintiff and took a specific stand that the suit house was constructed by Byasadev their father. During his life time he had adopted defendant No. 6 as a son. After the death of Byasadev, defendant No. 6 is entitled to a share. Since the suit house is a dwelling house, except defendant No. 1 and her adopted son defendant No. 6 none are entitled to inherit the dwelling house and plaintiff being a female heir is not entitled to any share in the said house. On that ground she has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Since the suit house is a dwelling house, except defendant No. 1 and her adopted son defendant No. 6 none are entitled to inherit the dwelling house and plaintiff being a female heir is not entitled to any share in the said house. On that ground she has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. On the above pleadings, the learned Court below framed as many as five issues which are as follows :- "1. Whether suit is maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled to claim partition of the suit house? 2. Did Byasadev allow the plaintiff to construct and reside in the 'A' marked portion of the map and has the plaintiff constructed a pucca house on the said portion of the suit plot? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pucca house over the suit land exclusively or defendants have share over it? 4. What is the present market value of the suit house and at what cost the pucca house was built? 5. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?" 4. In support of their case, both the parties have adduced oral evidence. The plaintiff examined defendant No. 1 as P. W. 2 who has supported the plaintiffs case. The learned Court below after considering the case and on assessing the evidence, recorded the following findings : "(A) The suit is maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled to claim for partition of the suit house; (B) Plaintiff is not entitled to exclusive possession of the suit house and the suit house is liable for partition as the suit properties are ancestral properties of the parties wherein plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are entitled to a share each. (C) Defendant No. 6 is not the adopted son of Byasadev. (D) The concept of Hindu Family which is presumed to be joint, the property in the hand of Jagatram would be held to be the ancestral property of Jagatram. Byasadev as a coparcener is entitled to half share as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and his father Jagatram is entitled to half share. The half share of Jagatram is liable to be shared by his sons and daughters and the sons and daughters of his predeceased daughter as Class-I heirs as per provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The half share of Jagatram is liable to be shared by his sons and daughters and the sons and daughters of his predeceased daughter as Class-I heirs as per provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. (F) Since Byasadev died in the year 1983 leaving behind no male issue, his share is liable to be divided equally amongst his wife defendant No. 1 and two daughters, i.e., plaintiff and defendant No. 2, and they are entitled to 2/3rd share in the suit properties and further he has directed that if the parties could not amicably carve out their shares out of Court, any of the parties may apply for final decree by appointing Civil Court Commissioner for carving out the shares. 5. Defendant No. 2 being aggrieved by the said findings of the trial Court has filed this Appeal. The plaintiff has not filed any cross-objection. 6. It reveals from the records that defendant No. 2 though stated in her written-statement that her son was adopted by Byasadev, neither any issue was framed in that respect nor did the parties lead any evidence in that regard since plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are all female heirs. 7. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended in the year 2005. Section 6 of the said Act reads as follows : "6. Devolution of interest in coparcenery property.- (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,- (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same right in the coparcener property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenery property as that of a son; and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener : Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. (2) to (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. (2) to (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section "partition" means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a Court." 8. After the amendment made in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005, the daughters are entitled to a share in the ancestral properties as a coparcener. This Court also perused the pleadings and evidence of the parties. Admittedly, the parties belong to Hindu Mitakshara family and plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are daughters. Defendant No. 1 is the widow and other defendants are the successors of common ancestor Jagatram. Since they are coparceners, each of them is entitled to a share. The Court below has carved out the shares properly. Hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Court below. Considering the fact that all the parties in the suit are entitled to a share and that there was no previous partition, the cost awarded by the trial Court is set aside. Parties will bear their own costs. 9. The decree is modified to the extent indicated above and rest part of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is confirmed. The First Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.