JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I Manasa, district Neemuch whereby the suit filed by respondents No.1 & 2 (plaintiffs) has been decreed and judgment dated 27.09.2018 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Manasa whereby the first appeal filed by defendants No. 1 to 3, 9 & 10 has been dismissed. Facts of the case in short are as under: 2. Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 & defendants No.1 & 4 are real brothers and sisters. They had two sisters viz. Vardibai whose sons are defendants No.5 & 6 and Hirabai whose two daughters are defendants No.7 & 8 in the suit. According to the plaintiffs in the year 1973 their younger brother Jaisingh (unmarried) left the house and their father Nandaji also left the house to search him but till today both of them have not returned to home. There is no evidence to believe either they are dead or alive, therefore, it can be presumed that they are no more. Thirty years back defendants No.1 to 3 have deserted Motyabai w/o Nandaji and she was taken care by the plaintiffs and other daughters. Nandaji was the owner of Vardiloparjit property land survey No. 181, area 6.329 hectares which contains wells and trees. Being the daughter of Nandaji, plaintiffs have inherited 1/6 - 1/6 share in the said property. In the year 1985-86, the defendant No.1 by taking the right of the plaintiffs and without giving any information to them has got mutated the said land in his name in the revenue record. Thereafter he has sold the part of land area 0.809 hectares to defendant No.9, therefore, the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. In the year 1993 he again sold the part of land area 0.225 hectares to defendant No.10 which is also not binding on the plaintiffs. Survey No.181, area 6.329 hectares has been renumbered as 395/2, area 4.00 hectares recorded in the name of defendant No.1, survey No.395/1 area 1.300 hectares recorded in the name of defendant No.3. Survey No.393 & 394 area 0.580 & 0.230 recorded in the name of defendant No.9 and the land survey No.4939 area 0.220 hectares recorded in the name of defendant No.10. In view of the above, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition, possession and mesne profit. Survey No.393 & 394 area 0.580 & 0.230 recorded in the name of defendant No.9 and the land survey No.4939 area 0.220 hectares recorded in the name of defendant No.10. In view of the above, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition, possession and mesne profit. 3. The defendants No.1, 2, 3, 9 & 10 filed the written statement denying the averment made in the plaint by submitting that mother had expired 25 years back, the father had left the house 15 years back without any information, therefore, being the son the name of defendant No.1 has been mutated in the revenue record. The suit is time barred by 25 years. The daughters of Nandabai i.e. plaintiffs and others after the marriage are residing with their husbands, hence they have no right in the suit property. 4. On the basis of the pleading, trial Court framed 10 issues for adjudication. Vide judgment dated 22.02.2014 learned trial Court has decreed the suit in part in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned trial Court has held that the plaintiffs are entitled to get 1/7 1/7 share in the suit property except the land sold to defendants No.9 & 10 by the defendant No.1 and they are also entitled for 1/6 1/6 share in the 1/7 share of mother Motyabai. The sale deeds in favour of defendants No.9 & 10 are not binding on the plaintiffs and they are entitled for their share in the remaining land with defendant No.1. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, defendants No.1 to 3, 9 & 10 filed first appeal and the same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 27.09.2018. Now the defendants No.1 to 3 have filed the present second appeal. 6. I have heard Shri V.R.Purohit, learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Nandaji died prior to 2005, therefore, the amendment in the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable to the plaintiffs and they are not entitled for the the share equal to the share of defendant No.1 in the Vardiloparjit property. The amendment took place in the Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005 is having prospective effect, therefore, the trial Court as well as first appellate Court have wrongly granted equal share to the plaintiffs being the daughters of Nandaji. The amendment took place in the Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005 is having prospective effect, therefore, the trial Court as well as first appellate Court have wrongly granted equal share to the plaintiffs being the daughters of Nandaji. In support of his contention he has placed reliance over the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash & others vs. Phulavati & others reported in AIR 2016 SC 769 ; Sheela Devi & others vs. Lal Chand & another reported in (2006) 8 SCC 581 ; and Keshavprasad vs. Kantabai & others reported in 1995 RN 278 . In the year 2018 a similar issue came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs. Amar & others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 343 in which the Apex Court has held that section 6, as amended, stipulates that on and from the commencement of the Amendment Act 2005, the daughter and co-parcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. It is apparent that the statute conferred upon son under the old section and the old Hindu Law was to treat them as coparcener since birth. The amended provision now statutorily recognizes the right of co-parceners of the daughter as well since birth. The section uses the word in the same manner as the son, therefore, it is apparent that both the son and the daughters of the co-parceners have been conferred the right of becoming co-parceners by birth. Para-23 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:- 23. Section 6, as amended, stipulates that on and from the commencement of the amended Act, 2005, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. It is apparent that the status conferred upon sons under the old section and the old Hindu Law was to treat them as coparceners since birth. The amended provision now statutorily recognizes the rights of coparceners of daughters as well since birth. The section uses the words in the same manner as the son. It should therefore be apparent that both the sons and the daughters of a coparcener have been conferred the right of becoming coparceners by birth. The amended provision now statutorily recognizes the rights of coparceners of daughters as well since birth. The section uses the words in the same manner as the son. It should therefore be apparent that both the sons and the daughters of a coparcener have been conferred the right of becoming coparceners by birth. It is the very factum of birth in a coparcenary that creates the coparcenary, therefore the sons and daughters of a coparcener become coparceners by virtue of birth. Devolution of coparcenary property is the later stage of and a consequence of death of a coparcener. The first stage of a coparcenary is obviously its creation as explained above, and as is well recognized. One of the incidents of coparcenary is the right of a coparcener to seek a severance of status. Hence, the rights of coparceners emanate and flow from birth (now including daughters) as is evident from sub-sections (1)(a) and (b). 8. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the ground raised by the present appellants are not tenable and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, hence the appeal is dismissed.