JUDGMENT : 1. By this appeal, the appellants are challenging the judgment and order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the Court of Ad hoc District Judge, Nagpur (appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 566 of 2017, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of partition and separate possession passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur (trial Court) in a suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The parties are related to each other and belong to the same family. Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar was the father of respondents herein. He was the grandfather of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 herein and father-in-law of appellant No. 1. The family consisted of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar, his wife Vinodini, three sons and three daughters. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein being one of the son and daughter of said Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 363 of 1999 on 13.4.1999, for partition and separate possession of the suit property, which was House No. 139 on plot Nos. 130 and 131, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur, consisting of three buildings A, B and C. The said respondents (original plaintiffs) claimed that they and other sons and daughters of the said Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar had 1/7th share in the suit property while appellant No. 3 herein, being grandson of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar had 1/14th share in the suit property. The said respondents (original plaintiffs) claimed that upon the demise of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar on 23.01.1975, the aforesaid children and their mother Vinodini had a share each in the suit property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [for short "Act of 1956"]. It was claimed that on 14.11.1991, their mother Vinodini had executed Will bequeathing her share in the suit property in favour of appellant No. 3 and respondent No. 3 herein. On this basis, decree for partition and separate possession was claimed in the suit property. Initially only respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff, but, later on respondent No. 2 was transposed as plaintiff No. 2. 3. On 24.11.2005, the defendants filed their written statement, wherein there was no denial of the fact that late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar was the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. Initially only respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff, but, later on respondent No. 2 was transposed as plaintiff No. 2. 3. On 24.11.2005, the defendants filed their written statement, wherein there was no denial of the fact that late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar was the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. But, it was contended that since the suit property consisted of dwelling houses, the daughters of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar did not have any claim of succession and partition by virtue of Section 23 of the Act of 1956, and that upon reading of Section 8 with Section 23 of the Act of 1956, the suit property stood devolved only in the name of widow of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar i.e. Vinodini and her three sons. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed issues, including an issue as to whether the defendants proved that under Section 8 read with Section 23 of the Act of 1956, the suit property devolved only on the sons and widow of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar and that the married daughters had no share in the same. Evidence of the parties was recorded before the trial Court, wherein it was specifically deposed by the original plaintiffs that the suit property was the absolute and exclusive property of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar and that all the sisters and brothers had 1/7th share each in the suit property. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence on record, by judgment and order dated 07.04.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit and held that widow of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar i.e. Vinodini, along with 3 sons and 3 daughters had 1/7th share each in the suit property. It was also held that respondent No. 3 herein and appellant No. 3 herein were entitled to 1/14th share in the suit property. The trial Court found that Will Deed dated 14.11.1991 executed by Vinodini was not disputed and that she had died on 30.05.1998. The trial Court found that by operation of Section 8 of the Act of 1956, said late Vinodini Bhiwapurkar and 3 sons along with 3 daughters, all had 1/7th share in the suit property. Additionally, the effect of the Will was taken into consideration, whereby late Vinodini had bequeathed her share in the suit property in favour of appellant No. 3 and respondent No. 3 herein. Additionally, the effect of the Will was taken into consideration, whereby late Vinodini had bequeathed her share in the suit property in favour of appellant No. 3 and respondent No. 3 herein. The Court found that the claim of the defendants, that only the sons could have claimed shares in the suit property, was not sustainable and that the married daughters also had a share in the suit property. The effect of Section 23, as claimed by the defendants was not accepted by the trial Court while granting decree in the aforesaid manner. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants herein filed First Appeal No. 1283 of 2008, which later was transferred to the District Court and numbered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 566 of 2015. The appellants claimed that since the suit property consisted of dwelling houses, the married daughters did not have a share in the suit property and that the manner in which the trial Court had ascertained the shares of the parties to the suit, was not justified. It was contended that upon a proper reading of Sections 8 and 23 of the Act of 1956, only the sons and widow of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar could have inherited shares in the suit property. 6. But, the appellate Court held against the appellants on the points framed on the basis of the contentions raised in the appeal and the appeal was dismissed. The appellate Court took into consideration the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court and it came to the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was justified, particularly because the relationship between the parties was admitted and Will dated 14.11.1991 was also admitted by the parties. It was found that the findings rendered by the trial Court were justified. 7. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and order of the appellate Court, the appellants herein have filed this appeal. On 28.07.2017, this Court issued notice in this appeal on the substantial questions of law framed at serial Nos. It was found that the findings rendered by the trial Court were justified. 7. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment and order of the appellate Court, the appellants herein have filed this appeal. On 28.07.2017, this Court issued notice in this appeal on the substantial questions of law framed at serial Nos. 1 and 2 in the memorandum of appeal, which read as follows:- (i) Whether the impugned judgments, orders and decrees passed by the Courts below are not against the settled principles of law and are thus perverse, illegal, in view of the law now well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Prakash and Others v. Phulvati and Others, 2015 All SCR 3568 that the coparcenary rights created in favour of daughter by section 6 substituted by Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act (39 of 2005) shall always be prospective and shall be applicable to only living daughters of living coparceners as on the date of amendment, irrespective of when such daughters are born and in other words the said rights shall be applicable to the daughters if and only if the daughters and her father are alive on the date of amendment i.e. 09-09-2005? (ii) Whether both the Courts below not committed serious error in law while passing impugned judgments, orders and decrees by failing to appreciate the admitted fact that as Shri Kanhaiyyalal died on 23.01.1975 i.e. much before Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act (39 of 2005) came into force, said amendment will not be applicable for succession to the properties left behind by him and the same shall be devolved by survivorship i.e. by Chapter IIA and accordingly Section 29-A in Chapter-IIA of Hindu Succession Act shall apply as all his daughters were admittedly married prior to 1994 and consequently they do not have equal share in coparcenary property? 8. On 20.11.2017, this Court recorded the submission of the Counsel for the parties to the effect that the instant appeal could be decided finally at admission stage and accordingly direction was given to put up this appeal for final disposal. Thereafter, paper book was filed and this appeal was taken up for final disposal with the consent of the Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 9. Thereafter, paper book was filed and this appeal was taken up for final disposal with the consent of the Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 9. Shri Harish Dangre, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the findings rendered by the Courts below were not justified because the nature of the property in the hands of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar was not ascertained by the Courts below. It was contended that the Courts had proceeded on the basis that the suit property was ancestral property and that therefore the submissions were made on behalf of the appellants in that light. It was contended that there was an admission given in the evidence of appellant No. 3, which pointed towards the fact that the property in the hands of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar was ancestral and that therefore, the entire nature of submissions made by the parties in the Courts below needed to be appreciated in that light. It was contented that the law as it stood at the time of death of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar on 23.01.1975 needed to be applied to properly determine the shares to which the parties were entitled in the present case. It was also contended that the consideration of the questions of law on which the notice was issued also depended on the aforesaid submission. In the context of the questions of law on which notice was issued in this appeal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Others v. Phulavati and Others, (2015) 11 Scale 643 and the full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Badrinaryan Shankar Bhandari v. Omprakash Shankar Bhandari, (2014) 5 Mh LJ 434. 10. On the other hand, Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Piyush Shukla, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the stand of the said respondents (original plaintiffs) was absolutely clear from the very beginning, as in paragraph 3 of the plaint itself it was stated that the suit property was the absolute and exclusive property of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar. 1 and 2 submitted that the stand of the said respondents (original plaintiffs) was absolutely clear from the very beginning, as in paragraph 3 of the plaint itself it was stated that the suit property was the absolute and exclusive property of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar. It was on the basis of the said pleading that the said respondents had relied upon Section 8 of the Act of 1956, while claiming that Vinodini widow of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar and all 3 sons and 3 daughters (including respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) were entitled to 1/7th share in the suit property. It was also contended that the written statement placed on record in the present case also demonstrated that the parties were clear about the basis of which the suit for partition was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, it was contended that the submissions made on behalf of the appellants herein about there being some confusion, as to the nature of the property in the hands of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar, was misplaced and that the Courts below had correctly decreed the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On the aforesaid questions of law on which the notice was issued by this Court, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that both the Courts below had correctly applied the law pertaining to various provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1956 while holding that the married daughters could not be deprived of their rightful shares in the suit property. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttam v. Saubhag Singh and Others, (2016) 4 SCC 68 and Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another, (2008) 17 SCC 491 . 11. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order, as also the judgment and order passed by the trial Court along with pleadings and evidence of the parties shows that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) specifically pleaded that the suit property, consisting of three buildings, was absolute and exclusive property in the hands of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar. This fact was nowhere denied by the defendants in their written statement. A perusal of the depositions of the witnesses also shows that the fact about the suit property being absolute and exclusive property of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar, was clearly stated. This fact was nowhere denied by the defendants in their written statement. A perusal of the depositions of the witnesses also shows that the fact about the suit property being absolute and exclusive property of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar, was clearly stated. Much emphasis is sought to be placed on behalf of the appellants herein, on a statement made in cross-examination of appellant No. 3, where a reference has been made to partition in between late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar and his brother. It has been contended that the aforesaid statement made in the cross examination of appellant No. 3 was enough to show that the suit property in the hands of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar was ancestral property and that therefore the approach adopted by the Courts below was erroneousness. 12. But, as stated above, the pleadings of the parties were absolutely clear and evidence was led on the basis that the suit property was the absolute and exclusive property of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar. In fact, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original plaintiffs) specifically pleaded that Section 8 of the Act of 1956 applied, as a result of which Vinodini (widow of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar) along with all 3 sons and daughters had 1/7th share each in the suit property. In fact, the trial Court framed specific issues and proceeded on this basis, including an issue as to whether the defendants had proved that under Sections 8 and 23 of the Act of 1956, only the said Vinodini and 3 sons had share in the suit property and that the married daughters did not have any share. It was the stand of the defendants that since the suit property consisted of dwelling houses, the married daughters, could neither claim partition nor did they have any share in the suit property. This was not supported by the provisions of the said Act and the law laid down in various judgments pertaining to the said provisions. 13. The stand taken by the defendants was based on an erroneous appreciation of the provisions of Act of 1956, including Section 23 thereof. Therefore, no error can be said to have been committed by the Courts below in granting the partition on the basis of shares as specified in the decree. 14. 13. The stand taken by the defendants was based on an erroneous appreciation of the provisions of Act of 1956, including Section 23 thereof. Therefore, no error can be said to have been committed by the Courts below in granting the partition on the basis of shares as specified in the decree. 14. As regards the substantial questions of law on which notice was issued in this appeal, the applicability of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Prakash and others and amendment of Section 6 of the Act of 1956, with effect from 9-9-2005, would not have any bearing on the present case and the decree passed by the Courts below. There is no dispute about the fact that when the aforesaid amendment came into effect from 09.09.2005, Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar had already died on 23.01.1975 and as per the ratio of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Prakash and others , the benefit of amendment would not have been available to the daughters in the present case. But, since in the present case the suit property, upon demise of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar, devolved as per Section 8 of the Act of 1956, all Class-I heirs succeeded to share in the suit property. Accordingly, Vinodini (widow of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar), along with 3 sons and 3 daughters inherited 1/7th share in the suit property and the question of effect of the aforesaid amendment in the said Act in the year 2005 or Section 29-A of the said Act and consequently the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and others , did not arise in the present case. Therefore, the Courts below correctly analyzed the pleadings as also the evidence on record by applying Section 8 of the Act of 1956, while determining the shares of the parties and granting partition of decree. It is evident that the questions of law on which notice was issued in this appeal deserve to be answered against the appellants. 15. As regards the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that there was some confusion with regard to the nature of property in the hands of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar, reliance has been correctly placed on behalf of respondent Nos. 15. As regards the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that there was some confusion with regard to the nature of property in the hands of late Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar, reliance has been correctly placed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar, wherein it has been held that the Court frames issues on the basis of pleadings of parties and that evidence is led thereon. It has been reiterated that the principle of law is well settled that in the absence of pleadings and issues, evidence cannot be considered to make out a new case which has not been pleaded at all. In the present case, the pleadings on record show that there was specific pleading on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) in the plaint that the suit property was absolute and exclusive property of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar and that this was nowhere denied by the defendants. It was also specifically pleaded by the original plaintiffs that Section 8 of the Act of 1956 applied and that all the Class-I heirs i.e. Vinodini, 3 sons and 3 daughters had share in the suit property. The defendants also proceeded on this basis and this is evident from the written statement, as also the issues that were framed by the trial Court. The defendants relied upon Section 23 of the Act of 1956, to claim that the married daughters were not entitled to any share. Evidence was led on the basis of such specific pleadings and the decree for partition was passed by the trial Court, which stood confirmed by dismissal of appeal by the appellate Court. In this situation, the appellants cannot now turn around and claim that there was some statement made in the cross-examination of appellant No. 3, which demonstrated that the nature of property in the hands of Kanhaiyyalal Bhiwapurkar was different from what was the basis of decree granted in the present case. Once the parties had gone to trial on specific pleadings, upon which issues were struck and evidence was led, it cannot lie on the mouth of the appellants to claim that the very basis on which the Courts below had proceeded was erroneous. This would go against the very basic principle of pleadings and evidence. Once the parties had gone to trial on specific pleadings, upon which issues were struck and evidence was led, it cannot lie on the mouth of the appellants to claim that the very basis on which the Courts below had proceeded was erroneous. This would go against the very basic principle of pleadings and evidence. Hence, there is no substance in the said submissions made on behalf of the appellants. 16. As regards the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, there can be no dispute about the position of law regarding amendment in the Act of 1956 and its effect. But, the said position of law does not have any bearing on the findings rendered by the two Courts below, while granting decree of partition and separate possession. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments would also be of no assistance to the appellants. 17. Accordingly, this appeal is found to be without any merit as the appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings rendered by the two Courts below and hence this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 18. On pronouncement of judgment, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that there was an interim order operating in this appeal, which may be continued in the interest of justice to enable the appellants to take appropriate steps to challenge the present order. In the interest of justice, adinterim order dated 28.7.2017 passed by this Court is continued for a period of 8 weeks from today.