JUDGMENT : S. SUJATHA, J. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal arises against the judgment and decree of the Fast Track Addl. M.A.C.T. Dharwad in R.A. No. 33/2013 (‘the lower appellate court’ for short), whereby the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed modifying the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Dharwad (‘the trial court’ for short) in O.S. No. 351/2005. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their status before the trial court. 4. Facts in brief are that, plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession in suit schedule property ‘A’ and ‘B’, against the defendants in O.S. No. 351/2005. Suit of the plaintiffs came to be decreed holding that plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/5th share each in suit properties. Being aggrieved, the defendant No. 1 preferred appeal before lower appellate Court in R.A. No. 33/2013. The lower appellate court partly allowed the appeal, holding that 4 acres of land, which is sold by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 together to defendants No. 4 and 5 and with regard to declaration that sale transaction of said 4 acres of land is not binding upon the share of plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3, as held by the trial court is not proper and thus gave a finding that plaintiff No. 2 and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to get 1/5th share each in all the suit properties except in 4 acres of land in R.S. No. 53 of Jogeyallapur village, which has already been sold by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 together to defendants No. 4 and 5. Being aggrieved, defendant No. 1 is in appeal. 5. Learned counsel Sri Avinash Banakar appearing for the defendant No. 1/appellant would submit that in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short) by Act No. 39 of 2005 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others vs. Phulavati and others, ILR 2015 Kar. Learned counsel Sri Avinash Banakar appearing for the defendant No. 1/appellant would submit that in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short) by Act No. 39 of 2005 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash and others vs. Phulavati and others, ILR 2015 Kar. 5329, daughters are not entitled to any share in the coparcenery properties since the father Ningappa was not alive when the plaintiff No. 2daughter along plaintiff No. 1 moved for partition before the trial court in the year 2005. Learned counsel submitted that the father Ningappa died on 29.11.1977 and has produced the copy of the Death Certificate of the said Ningappa. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prakash and others (supra), it was submitted that the shares allotted to the daughters requires to be modified. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri A.R. Patil appearing for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and Sri M.G. Gadagoli appearing for respondents No. 5 and 6 does not dispute the same. 7. In view of the factual aspects as narrated above, it is clear that plaintiff No. 1, who is none other than the son of deceased Ningappa along with his sister-plaintiff No. 2 instituted suit O.S. No. 351/2005 before the trial court, seeking for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 9. The only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is, “whether the shares allotted to the parties by the courts below is justifiable in terms of the amendment to Section 6 of the Act by Amendment Act 39 of 2005 w.e.f. 09.09.2005?” 10. 9. The only substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is, “whether the shares allotted to the parties by the courts below is justifiable in terms of the amendment to Section 6 of the Act by Amendment Act 39 of 2005 w.e.f. 09.09.2005?” 10. The trial court after appreciating the material evidence on record, partly decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 have got 1/5th share each in suit schedule properties and the sale transaction in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5 is binding only on plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 and not binding on plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3 and they are entitled to their respective shares by effecting a partition by metes and bounds holding that daughters are entitled equal share as a coparcener in view of amended provision of Section 6 of the Act. On appeal filed by the defendant No. 1, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal in part modifying the decree. The lower appellate court setting aside the judgment and decree as far as awarding 1/5th share each to plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3 in 4 acres of land in R.S. No. 53 of Jogeyallapur village, which was already sold by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 together to defendants No. 4 and 5 and also with regard to declaration that the sale transaction of said 4 acres of land is not binding upon the shares of plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3, partly allowed the appeal. It is not in dispute that the property in question is the ancestral property of Ningappa. Ningappa died in the year 29.11.1977. Section 6 of the Act substituted by Act 39 of 2005 w.e.f. 09.09.2005 reads thus: “Devolution of interest in coparcenary 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 rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son. (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son. (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son. 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 subsection 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) xxxxxx (3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place: (a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son. (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx 11. This provision was the subject matter of Prakash and others (supra), whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court interpreting the said provision has categorically held that “the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparcenars as on 9th September, 2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born. To claim the benefit under the Amendment Act, all that is required is that daughter should be alive and her father should also be alive on the date of the amendment.” 12. In the light of the said judgment, now the judgment and decree passed by the courts below requires to be modified as regards the shares allotted to the daughters namely, plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3. In the light of the said judgment, now the judgment and decree passed by the courts below requires to be modified as regards the shares allotted to the daughters namely, plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3. However, in respect of finding of the lower appellate court as regards the share of the plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3 in 4 acres of land in R.S. No. 53 of Jogeyallapur village, which has already been sold by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 together to defendants No. 4 and 5 and also with regard to declaration that sale transaction of said 4 acres of land is binding upon the share of plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 2 and 3 is confirmed as the evidence on record has been extensively analysed and re-appreciated by the lower appellate court to arrive at a decision that plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 both have sold 4 acres of land in one of the suit lands bearing R.S. No. 53 of Jogeyallapur village through registered sale deed dated 30.03.1999 in favour of defendants No. 4 and 5, marked as Exs.D7 and D8. These properties were sold for the legal necessity of the joint family, which has been duly established based on the material evidence placed on record by the parties. It has come on record that these properties were sold for family necessity and to pay the debts incurred by Sri Ningappa and also to meet the marriage expenses of the daughters. In such circumstances, the finding recorded by the lower appellate court as far as this point is concerned does not require any interference. 13. However, in view of the Amendment Act to Section 6 of the Act and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, the shares allotted to the parties requires to be modified as under: By notational partition Ningappa, Channabasappa and Basappa gets 1/3rd share each. Ningappa died on 29.11.1977. On his demise, his 1/3rd share devolves upon all his five children equally. Ningappa died on 29.11.1977. On his demise, his 1/3rd share devolves upon all his five children equally. Thus, plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 gets 1/15th share from the share of Ningappa in addition to their 1/3rd share (1/3 + 1/15 = 6/15) = 2/5, whereas plaintiff No. 2, defendant Nos.2 and 3 get 1/15th share each, in the suit properties except in 4 acres of land in R.S. No. 53 of Jogeyallapur village, which has already been sold by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 together to defendants No. 4 and 5. Sale transactions in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 is binding on all the parties to the suit. 14. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below are set aside. Appeal is partly allowed. ORDER Plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 are entitled to 2/5th share each, whereas plaintiff No. 2, defendants No. 2 and 3 are entitled to 1/15th share each in the suit properties, except in 4 acres of land in R.S. No. 53 of Jogeyallapur village, which has already been sold by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 together to defendants No. 4 and 5. Parties are entitled for their respective shares by effecting partition by metes and bounds. Draw preliminary decree accordingly.