JUDGMENT : Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 8 are before this Court being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2004 passed in O.S.No.289/1995 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’ for brevity), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part and declaring that the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for share in the schedule properties, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 20.08.2009 in R.A.No.83/2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ for brevity). 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-Smt. Munichowdamma (for short 'plaintiff') filed suit O.S.No.289/1995 against defendant Nos.1 to 8, seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share over the schedule properties and also for mesne profits. In all ten items of the properties were described along with the boundaries in the schedule appended to the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1- Nyathareddy and defendant No.2 is his son. It is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.81 belongs to the family of the plaintiff and at the time of her marriage, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have promised to give the said property to the plaintiff towards ‘Arishina Kunkuma’ during division of the properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have jointly executed a family arrangement but styled as gift deed. The plaintiff was put in possession of the said property and thus she is cultivating the said land. 4. It is contended that defendant No.2 started proclaiming that he will alienate Sy.No.81 measuring 1.18 acres, which was in possession of the plaintiff. He colluded with the village accountant and changed the khatha in his name as per ISA-17 of ISA 7/94-95. This change was during the life time of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff approached defendant Nos.1 and 2 but defendant No.2 was adamant in not permitting the plaintiff to enjoy the property to the exclusion of others. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by virtue of the document dated 12.02.1984 and for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by virtue of the document dated 12.02.1984 and for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the same. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.1 died and defendant No.2 denied execution of the document dated 12.02.1984 and taken untenable contentions. Therefore, the plaintiff got amended the plaint and sought for partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share over the schedule properties. It is contended that the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and 5 to 8 are having right over the schedule properties. Defendant No.4 is the third wife of defendant No.1, who is also entitled for share over the schedule properties after the death of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for partition and separate possession of her share in the schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and her legal representatives were brought on record. 5. Defendant No.2 appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right whatsoever over the schedule properties. It is contended that the land measuring 1.18 acres in Sy.No.81 was never given to the plaintiff and there was no execution of any document as contended by the plaintiff. It is denied that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. 6. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.1 was having three wives. Each one of them are having children who are subsequently arrayed as defendant Nos.5 to 8. It is contended that during the year 1984, there was a division in the joint family between defendant Nos.1 and 2 and elder brother of defendant No.1. Accordingly, all the joint family properties were divided into three shares. During the life time of defendant No.1, his share was given to his last son by name Muniraju, who was born to his third wife. However, the khatha continued to be in the name of the father of defendant No.1. In the said partition, the schedule properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.2 and therefore, he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. However, the khatha continued to be in the name of the father of defendant No.1. In the said partition, the schedule properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.2 and therefore, he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. Therefore, defendant No.2 contended that the plaintiff is not having any right, title or interest over the schedule properties and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Defendant No.3 i.e., the Sub-Registrar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal, filed the written statement stating that no relief is sought against him and he is only a formal party. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit against him. 8. Defendant No.5 filed the written statement contending that she is the daughter of defendant No.1 through his first wife. The plaintiff and defendants are the members of the Hindu undivided family and defendant No.1 died on 05.12.1995 leaving behind him the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2, 4 to 8. Therefore, it is contended that she is also entitled for her share over the schedule properties. 9. The additional defendant-Shanthamma filed the written statement stating that she is the wife of defendant No.2 who has filed detailed written statement and she adopted the said written statement. She contended that Sy.No.74 of Sompura Village measuring 2.12 acres was the self-acquired property of defendant No.1, who is her father-in-law. During the year 1989, her father-in-law i.e., defendant No.1 sold the said property in her favour. She purchased the same for valuable consideration and the sale deed was executed in her name and defendant No.2. Therefore, the plaintiff and other defendants are not having any right over the said property. Accordingly, she prays for dismissal of the suit. 10. Defendant No.2 filed the additional written statement contending that the suit is bad for partial partition. All the ancestral properties are not included in the suit. All the members of the family are also not impleaded. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended that item Nos.1 and 4 in the schedule are one and same property and it has fallen to his share in the family partition during 1984. Therefore, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is also contended that half portion of item No.5 had fallen to the share of defendant No.1 and the remaining half portion to defendant No.2. Therefore, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is also contended that half portion of item No.5 had fallen to the share of defendant No.1 and the remaining half portion to defendant No.2. The half portion allotted to defendant No.1 was purchased by the wife of defendant No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 22.03.1989. Thus, defendant No.2 and his wife are in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Item Nos.6, 7 and 10 are also in the possession of defendant No.2. It is contended that item Nos.8 and 9 are not belonging to the family. Thus, it is contended that item Nos.1 to 7 and 10 have fallen to the share of defendant No.2 and they are in his possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff is not having any right over those properties. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the suit. 11. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues as under: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Gift Deed dated 12.02.1984 executed by defendants 1 and 2? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by defendants 1 and 2? 4. What order or decree?" Addl. Issue framed on 8.11.02: 1. Whether the plaintiff (5th defendant) proves that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and plaintiffs are entitled for a share therein?" Addl. Issue framed on 13.08.03: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for accounts in the suit property? 2. Whether defendant No.8 proves that item no.8 was the self acquired property of Lt. Nyatha reddy and she had purchased the same out of her own funds and she is in possession of the same?" Addl. Issue framed on 22.08.04: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the suit property? 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the suit is bad for partial partition?" 12. The plaintiffs examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P27 in support of their contention. The defendants examined defendant No.2 as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D37 in support of their defence. 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the suit is bad for partial partition?" 12. The plaintiffs examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P27 in support of their contention. The defendants examined defendant No.2 as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D37 in support of their defence. After taking into consideration all these materials on record, the trial Court held that plaintiff No.2 and defendant Nos.4 to 7 are entitled for a decree of partition and separate possession of their 1/21th share over the schedule properties. Plaintiff Nos.1(a) and 1(b) are entitled for 1/42th share each in the schedule property. Defendant No.2 is entitled for 8/21th share. It is also held that the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profit. Accordingly, preliminary decree was drawn. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.2, 4 and 8 have preferred R.A.No.83/2006. The First Appellate Court on consideration of the materials on record, held that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not call for any interference and confirmed the same by dismissing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.2, 4 and 8 have preferred this second appeal. 14. Heard learned counsel for appellant No.1 and respondents. Learned counsel who are representing appellant Nos.2 and 3 have not addressed their arguments inspite of giving sufficient opportunity. 15. Learned counsel for appellant No.1 contended that Ex.D1 is the partition deed entered into between defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ex.D2 is the registered sale deed between defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and wife of defendant No.2, Ex.D3 is the deed of redumption of mortgage. The mortgage was redeemed by defendant No.2. Ex.D1 was acted upon and mutation was effected. None of these documents were considered by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs is to be dismissed. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs opposing the appeal contended that admittedly, the schedule properties are the ancestral properties enjoyed by the joint family. Defendant No.1 being the father of plaintiffs and defendants never disputed the claim of the plaintiffs. It is only defendant No.2 who is contesting the suit. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs opposing the appeal contended that admittedly, the schedule properties are the ancestral properties enjoyed by the joint family. Defendant No.1 being the father of plaintiffs and defendants never disputed the claim of the plaintiffs. It is only defendant No.2 who is contesting the suit. When it is admitted that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties, the decision in the case of VINEETA SHARMA v. RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS, AIR 2020 SC 3717 , is applicable and therefore, the shares allotted is to be re-worked out. Since there are no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, the contention taken by the appellants are to be rejected. However, he prays for allowing the appeal in part and to allot equal share to the plaintiffs and defendants who are admittedly the members of the joint family. 17. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 05.06.2012 to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Courts below are justified in granting a decree for partition despite the fact that there was a partition under a Registered Deed dated 12.02.1984 [Ex.D1] and the Release Deed [Ex.D2] was executed in favour of defendant No.2 and his wife and whether a suit in such circumstances is maintainable in law?" 18. The matter was reserved for judgment on 13.10.2022. Again, learned counsel for appellant No.1 moved the memo for posting on 19.10.2022. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 20.10.2022. The order dated 20.10.2022 reads as under: "Learned counsel for appellant No.1 has filed the memo dated 19.10.2022 signed by appellant No.1, seeking permission to withdraw the appeal as not pressed. The memo is placed on record. Appeal preferred by appellant No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn." 19. It is the contention of the original plaintiff-Smt. Munichowdamma that she is the daughter of defendant No.1 while defendant No.2 is his son. Defendant No.4 is third wife of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.5 to 8 are the children of defendant No.1 through his second and third wives. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and original plaintiff and defendants are the members of the joint family. Therefore, she is entitled for the share in the schedule properties. It is the further contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and original plaintiff and defendants are the members of the joint family. Therefore, she is entitled for the share in the schedule properties. Now in view of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the decision in the case of VINEETA SHARMA (supra), it is the contention of the plaintiffs that they are entitled for equal share as coparceners in the joint family. 20. Per contra, it is the contention of defendant No.2 that even though the schedule properties are admitted to be the ancestral properties, there was partition in the family i.e., between defendant Nos.1 and 2 as per Ex.D1. Item Nos.1 to 7 and 10 were allotted to the share of defendant No.2 and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share. It is also contended that Ex.D2 is the registered sale deed between defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and the wife of defendant No.2. Further, as per Ex.D3, item No.4 was redeemed to mortgage by defendant No.2 and therefore, he is entitled for the said property. 21. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence lead by defendant No.2 concurrently held that Ex.D1 dated 12.02.1984 does not bear the signature of defendant No.1 and Gowramma and it is an incomplete document. It is also held that defendant No.2 failed to substantiate his contention that there was earlier partition in the family. When it is the specific contention of defendant No.2 that the schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties and when he failed to prove his defence that there was a partition in the family, all the members of the family will be entitled to a share in the schedule properties. Learned counsel for the appellants failed to substantiate his contention that the finding recorded by both the Courts are perverse or against the materials that are placed before the Courts. Both the Courts have assigned valid reasons to ignore Exs.D1 to D3. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants and in favour of the plaintiffs. 22. Both the Courts have assigned valid reasons to ignore Exs.D1 to D3. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants and in favour of the plaintiffs. 22. When it is admitted that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties and when the relationship between the parties is also admitted, defendant No.1 and his children are entitled for equal share over the schedule properties. Defendant No.4 being the wife of defendant No.1 is also entitled for a share in the properties i.e., fallen to the share of her husband. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have decided the issue without taking into consideration the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. The decision in the case of VINEETA SHARMA (supra) is aptly applicable to the present case, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. Such right in co-parcenery is by birth and it is not necessary that the father should be living as on 09.09.2005. The Apex Court also made it clear that the provisions of substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is to be given full effect to. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given share in coparcenery equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the shares of each of the member of the joint family is to be re-worked out. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 being the children of defendant No.1 along with defendant No.4 are entitled for 1/7th share each. After the death of defendant No.1, plaintiff, defendant Nos.2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 being his children and defendant No.4 being his wife are entitled for 1/7th share each in the share allotted to him. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. After the death of defendant No.1, plaintiff, defendant Nos.2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 being his children and defendant No.4 being his wife are entitled for 1/7th share each in the share allotted to him. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2004 passed in O.S.No.289/1995 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Anekal holding that the plaintiffs and other defendants are entitled for share is upheld. However, the shares allotted by the trial Court is modified as under: Plaintiffs being the children of the original plaintiff-Smt.Munichowdamma are together entitled for 8/49th share. Similarly, defendant No.2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 who are also the children of defendant No.1 are entitled for 8/49th share. Defendant No.4 being the wife of defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/49th share in the schedule properties by metes and bounds. (iii) Under peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs. (iv) Registry is directed to draw decree accordingly. (v) Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment.