JUDGMENT Jayant M. Patel, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dhoraji in Special Civil Suit No. 59 of 2011, whereby, the learned Judge has passed preliminary decree holding the share of the original plaintiffs to the extent of 1/5th and has further directed the appointment of Commissioner and the account to be submitted of the properties. The short facts of the case appear to be that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs [hereinafter referred to as the 'Sisters'] have filed the suit for partition of the coparcenary property of their father's family contending inter alia that they are daughters of the deceased Maganbhai Mohanbhai Mavani and the defendants are the brothers, in possession of the family property and they are entitled to the share in the family property. 2. The appellant together with respondent No. 3-defendants had resisted the suit contending inter alia that the Will was executed by the father during his lifetime in favour of the mother, original defendant No. 1 and it was contended that the partition had taken place and further, after marriage of the original plaintiffs, they are not entitled to get any share in the property. 3. The learned Judge framed issues and the suit was tried. After conducting trial and alter considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge has passed above referred judgment and preliminary decree. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is before this Court. 4. We have heard Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Chandrani, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. It appears that the Will was not been proved. Apart from the said aspect, if the property was a coparcenary property, the right would accrue to the members of the coparcener from the very beginning. It appears from the record that even when the Will was executed, the deceased Maganbhai had two daughters and two sons and therefore, by Will, the member of coparcenary property deceased could not bequeath the whole property. If the Will was not proved, we do not find that which discussion may be required on the said aspect. It appears from the record that even when the Will was executed, the deceased Maganbhai had two daughters and two sons and therefore, by Will, the member of coparcenary property deceased could not bequeath the whole property. If the Will was not proved, we do not find that which discussion may be required on the said aspect. No material is shown to us on the basis of which, it cannot be said that the findings recorded for by the lower Court that the Will has not been proved, was perverse or otherwise. 6. It was contended by Mr. Majmudar that learned counsel for the appellants that as per amendment brought out in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughter would have right as such in coparcenary property, but from prospective date. He submitted that the right accrued to the daughter if prior to amendment, the same is not saved. As per him, partition has taken place during the lifetime of father viz. Maganbhai Mohanbhai Mavani and therefore, the same would not stand disturbed. He contended that when the father had expired, the right would be stand as accrued, but the same is in any case, prior to the amendment made in Hindu Succession Act. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned Judge that the original plaintiffs are having share in the coparcenary property, is erroneous. 7. In our view, the contention cannot be accepted on the face of it for two reasons; one is that the partition has not been proved. No documentary or no satisfactory evidence is produced by the appellants or recorded by the revenue authority that the property of deceased Maganbhai was divided after his death or even prior thereto. After the death of deceased Maganbhai, the property would continue as that of coparcenary property since partition was not proved and no other material showing the division by metes and bounds was brought on record. Once the partition was not proved or there was no partition, coparcenary property would continue to have same character and it cannot be said that since the right accrued on the date when the father had expired. Such right is saved by amendment made in provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. Once the partition was not proved or there was no partition, coparcenary property would continue to have same character and it cannot be said that since the right accrued on the date when the father had expired. Such right is saved by amendment made in provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. As such on the date of death of father, if the property remained as coparcenary property and no division or partition is made prior to the amendment, the right cannot be extinguished of Hindu female in coparcenary property. There was no satisfactory evidence, produced before the trial Court nor before us to show that the property was partitioned prior to the amendment. If the property was not partitioned prior to the amendment, merely, because the father, one of coparcener of the property had expired, such right can be said as extinguished nor could be said that the right of partition had accrued only on the death of father. If on the date of amendment, the property has continued as coparcenary property, Hindu female will have right at par with the son. 8. The aspect of any independent contribution made by the appellants from their own income at the time of marriage of sisters has also not been proved and no material is shown to us, which may show that the findings recorded is perverse or otherwise. 9. It may be recorded that as submitted by learned counsel for both the sides since it was a matter pertaining to dispute between the brothers and sisters, the Court had initially issued notice for settlement and the attempts were made by the earlier Bench of this Court for settlement. But the learned counsel submit that as brothers and sisters were not in talking terms, nothing has come out from the said efforts and it is not possible to settle the matter. 10. In any case, the suit is yet to be considered for passing final decree and if the party agrees, the settlement may come out or otherwise law will to take its own course. In view of the above, we find that the appeal is meritless and hence, deserves to be dismissed. The amount of costs which has been deposited by the appellants towards the cost of original plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. In view of the above, we find that the appeal is meritless and hence, deserves to be dismissed. The amount of costs which has been deposited by the appellants towards the cost of original plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. Order Est Civil Application: As the appeal is dismissed, Civil Application does not survive. Hence, Civil Application disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed