JUDGMENT : These two appeals arise out of a common judgment in O.S.Nos.54 of 2005 and 84 of 2003 in the Court of IX Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, dated 31.10.2006 and as such they are being disposed of together. The parties in these appeals are the same. However for ease of convenience, the parties are being referred to as they were arrayed in O.S.No.54 of 2005. 2. The plaintiff has appeared and argued his case as party in person. Sri Challa Dhananjay has appeared for the 3rd defendant. There is no representation for the remaining defendants. 3. Late Sri Grandhi Suryarao had three sons, viz., the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, and 8 daughters. One daughter is said to have committed suicide on 10.02.1997 and another daughter has been missing for quite some time. The remaining six daughters are arrayed as defendants 4 to 9. Late Sri G. Suryarao and his wife had acquired the suit schedule property by way of a deed of sale dated 10.08.1966, which was marked as Ex.A.2. The wife of Sri G. Suryarao had passed away earlier in the year 1994 and Sri G. Suryarao passed away on 18.06.1998. The suit schedule property, consists of a RCC slab building with ground floor and 1st floor, is situated in 180 sq. yards of land bearing D.No.46-15-9 of Dondaparthy village Division No.31 of Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.369 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for partition of the suit schedule property, between himself and defendants 1 and 2 only. While this suit was pending, the defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 8 had executed a sale deed conveying the suit schedule property to the 3rd defendant by way of a deed of sale dated 19.08.2003. Subsequently, the 9th defendant had executed a supplementary deed in favour of the 3rd defendant on 06.09.2003. This sale and supplementary deed were assailed and challenged by the plaintiff, by way of O.S.No.84 of 2003. Later O.S.No.369 of 2003 was transferred to the District Court and renumbered as O.S.No.54 of 2005 for joint trial to be heard along with O.S.No.84 of 2003. 4. This sale and supplementary deed were assailed and challenged by the plaintiff, by way of O.S.No.84 of 2003. Later O.S.No.369 of 2003 was transferred to the District Court and renumbered as O.S.No.54 of 2005 for joint trial to be heard along with O.S.No.84 of 2003. 4. The case of the plaintiff in both the suits is that the property is joint family property of the coparcenery of late Sri G. Suryarao and only the sons of late Sri G. Suryarao would be entitled to a share in the property. This would mean that the property would have to be divided into three parts, viz., the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant herein. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant by way of the initial deed of sale dated 19.08.2003 and the supplementary deed dated 06.09.2003 requires to be set aside as the said sale has been carried out to cause unlawful loss to the plaintiff by the other family members of the plaintiff who were not entitled to dispose of the suit property, which was already the subject matter of O.S.No.54 of 2005. 5. The defendants filed their written statements contending that the property is the self acquired property of their father and that all the sons and daughters of late Sri G. Suryarao would have equal shares in the said property. The 3rd defendant took the stand in both the cases that the purchase made by the 3rd defendant is a genuine and bona fide transaction and it does not take away any right of the plaintiff. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court formulated the following issues in both the suits. 7. In O.S.No.54 of 2005 the following issues and additional issue were settled: 1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary co-sharers as parties to the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share or 1/9th share in the plaint schedule property? 3. To what relief? Additional Issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff is ousted from the family of the father of plaintiff, if ousted, what is the effect? In O.S.No.84 of 2003 the following issues were settled: 1. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share or 1/9th share in the plaint schedule property? 3. To what relief? Additional Issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff is ousted from the family of the father of plaintiff, if ousted, what is the effect? In O.S.No.84 of 2003 the following issues were settled: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 19.08.2003 executed by defendants 1 to 6 in favour of 8th defendant and the supplemental registered deed dated 06.09.2003 executed by the 7th defendant in favour of the 8th defendant are null, void and unenforceable? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 8, their men and agents from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 3. To what relief? 8. The plaintiff examined himself and another witness as PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.18. The 1st defendant was examined as DW.1, the 3rd defendant was examined as DW.2 and the 4th defendant was examined as DW.3 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.11(A). One exhibit was marked as Ex.X.1. 9. The trial Court after conducting trial and hearing all sides, had partly decreed both the suits. 10. The trial Court while partly allowing the suits had held as follows: a) The plaint schedule property was the ancestral joint family properties of late Sri G. Suryarao and his family members; b) Plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 9 are entitled to one share each; c) Sale deed dated 19.08.2003 and settlement deed dated 06.09.2003 executed in favour of the 3rd defendant are null and void and not enforceable under law; d) The 3rd defendant is entitled to recover the amounts paid to his vendors by way of separate proceedings: and e) A permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 11. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the plaintiff has filed A.S.No.81 of 2007 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.54 of 2005. The 3rd defendant has filed A.S.No.424 of 2007 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.84 of 2003. 12. The appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.81 of 2007 is essentially on the question of the shares of the family members of late Sri G. Suryarao. The 3rd defendant has filed A.S.No.424 of 2007 against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.84 of 2003. 12. The appeal filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.81 of 2007 is essentially on the question of the shares of the family members of late Sri G. Suryarao. The finding of the trial Court that the suit schedule property is joint family property is not the subject matter of either appeal and the said finding has become final and binding on all the parties. However, the plaintiff contends that only the male members of the family i.e., plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property and the said property has to be partitioned into three parts and not nine parts as directed by the trial Court. 13. Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd defendant in both the appeals submits that the issue as to the right of the daughters in the joint family property is no more res integra and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinitha Sarma v. Rakesh Sarma and Ors, 2020 (9) SCC 1 . 14. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) had conferred certain rights on daughters in coparcenery property. The effect of this amendment came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Prakash v. Phulavati, 2016 (2) SCC 36 , which held that only living daughters of living coparceners as on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act would have coparcenery rights in hindu joint family property. 15. There was a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court on the very same issue in Danamma v. Amar, 2018 3 SCC 343 . A Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lokamani and others v. Mahadevamma and others, (2020) 9 SCC 91 , took the view that there was a conflict of opinion between these two judgments and referred the matter to a Bench of three learned Judges. Subsequently, a Bench of three learned Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme court decided this issue in Vinitha Sarma v. Rakesh Sarma and Ors. Subsequently, a Bench of three learned Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme court decided this issue in Vinitha Sarma v. Rakesh Sarma and Ors. The Full Bench by way of answering the reference held that the provisions contained in the substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confers status of coparcenery on the daughters born before or after the amendment, in the same manner as a son with the same rights and liabilities, subject to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition of the property which may have taken place before 20.12.2004. 16. In the present case, the suit schedule property has not been subjected to any such transaction and consequently following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it must be held that all the children of late Sri G. Suryarao would be entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the finding of the trial Court in this regard is confirmed. 17. A.S.No.424 of 2007 has been filed by the 3rd defendant to set aside the finding and direction of the trial Court that the deed of sale dated 19.08.2003 and deed of settlement dated 06.09.2003 executed in his favour are null and void. A perusal of the said judgment would show that the trial Judge came to this conclusion on the grounds that the sale of the property was carried out by the remaining defendants even after they were aware of the pendency of the suit and the claim of the plaintiff; inadequate consideration had been paid for purchase of the property as the value of the property was around 16,30,000/- while the 3rd defendant is said to have purchased the property for a value of Rs.10 lakhs, which shows that there was inadequate consideration; the plaintiff had a right, under Section 4 of the Partition Act, to purchase the shares of other sharers and the said right has been taken away by the said sale to the 3rd respondent; the entire transaction was hurried through in a clandestine manner and the same reflects some ill-intention and consequently the documents need to be declared as null and void. 18. The reasons set out by the trial Court cannot be accepted. 18. The reasons set out by the trial Court cannot be accepted. It is an admitted fact that the documents which require stamp and registration are invariably undervalued, to the extent possible both with a view to avoid stamp duty, registration fee and also evade the income tax valuation of the transaction. In fact, the Parliament having recognised this tendency had amended the Income Tax Act 1961 to include Chapter-XX-C whereby the department would be entitled to purchase any property over and above the value of Rs.20 lakhs where sale documents in relation to such property are presented before the registering authorities. In those circumstances, the ground of under valuation does not in any manner require the setting aside of the above two documents. 19. The trial Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the sale of the property was done to harm his interests and therefore requires to be set aside. It is true that these two documents show as if the entire schedule property has been purchased by the 3rd defendant. The explanation given by the 3rd defendant, as to why he had accepted such a document while the claim of the plaintiff remain outstanding, is that he was shown a news paper notice issued by Late Sri G. Surya Rao, disowning the plaintiff and consequently he was advised that the said claim of the plaintiff need not be taken into account. 20. Section 4 of the Partition Act reads as follows: “4. Partition suit by transferee of share in dwelling-house.—( 1) Where a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition, the court shall, if any member of the family being a shareholder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf.” 21. A reading of the said provision makes it amply clear that the said provision comes into play only when an outsider, who is not a member of the family, acquires a share in a property and initiates proceedings for partition of the property. A reading of the said provision makes it amply clear that the said provision comes into play only when an outsider, who is not a member of the family, acquires a share in a property and initiates proceedings for partition of the property. In that case, any of the family members can undertake to purchase the share of such outsider and the Court shall, after valuation, direct the sale of the share of the outsider to the family member/s. In the present case, the plaintiff had already initiated a suit for partition even before the 3rd defendant had purchased the property. Section 4 of the partition is obviously not applicable to the case. Further, this provision does not grant any right to the plaintiff to purchase the shares of defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 9. 22. In view of the filing of the suits and the declaration of the interests of the plaintiff in the property, no harm would be caused to the plaintiff by the above transactions. In the circumstances, it would suffice to hold that the deed of sale dated 19.08.2003 and deed of settlement dated 06.09.2003 would only convey the right title and interest of defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 9 to the 3rd defendant and the right and interest of the 3rd defendant is restricted to the right and interest of defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 9 only. 23. Accordingly, A.S.No.424 of 2007 is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. 24. As a result of the above findings, A.S.No.81 of 2007 is disposed of with the following findings/directions: 1. The suit schedule property is Hindu joint family property in which the sons and daughters of late Sri G. Suryarao have equal shares and the finding of the Trial court to this effect is affirmed. 2. The shares of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 9 in the suit schedule property have now been conveyed to the 3rd defendant and the 3rd defendant continues to have those rights. 3. The final decree proceedings pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 31.10.2003 passed in O.S.No.54 of 2005 may go on subject to the above modifications. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.