JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the legal representatives of the defendant No.1, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 17.01.2018 in R.A.No.304/2013 on the file of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 23.10.2013 in O.S.No.282/1998 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi, decreeing the suit in part. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties to this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the defendant No.1 is the maternal aunt of the plaintiff. It is further stated that, the original propositus Mallappa Adaragi had three daughters namely, Kashavva (D1), Iravva mother of the plaintiff and Neelavva, mother of defendant Nos.5 to 7. Mallappa died in the year 1947, leaving behind his wife and three daughters. Mallappa’s wife-Chinnavva died in the year 1976. It is further averred that, Smt. Chinnavva gifted non-suit property bearing CTS No.4902/1985 to her son in law-Gurappa Madanalli (husband of Neelavva). After the death of Neelavva, her husband and the children became the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. After the death of Chinnavva (grand-mother of the plaintiff), children of the three daughters Kashavva, Iravva and Neelavva succeeded to the estate of the late Chinnavva. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the property of the Chinnavva as the plaintiff is the only legal heir of Iravva, since, his Sister Shakuntala is died and accordingly disputed the property bearing CTS No.4902/1985 before the trial Court in O.S.No.282/1998 seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. 4. On service of notice, defendant No.1 entered appearance but she did not file written statement. Defendant No.1 is no more and thereafter, the legal heirs of the late Kashavva were brought on record. Legal heir Sri. Babu Irappa Ankalagi – son of the Kashavva contested the matter by way of filing written statement and remaining legal heirs were not appeared and remained absent. Defendant No.1(b) denied the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant No.1(b) that, Smt. Neelavva died leaving behind children and all her children have to be made as party to the proceedings. Defendant No.1(b) denied the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant No.1(b) that, Smt. Neelavva died leaving behind children and all her children have to be made as party to the proceedings. It is the specific case of the defendant No.1(b) that, his mother Iravva died prior to the death of his grand mother – Chinnavva in the year 1976 and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for share in the suit schedule property and accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court based on the pleadings on record, framed the issues for its consideration. In order to establish their case, plaintiff have examined one witness as P.W.1 and produced 11 documents and the same were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.11. On the other hand, defendant has examined as D.W.1 and got marked 14 documents and the same were marked as Ex.D.1 to D.14. The trial Court after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 23.10.2013 decreed the suit in part, holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the contesting defendants have filed R.A.No.304/2013 on the file of the First Appellate Court and the appeal was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after considering the material on record, by its Judgment and Decree dated 17.01.2018, dismissed the appeal and as such, confirmed the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.282/1998. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 6. I have heard Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 7. Sri. Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that, since the mother of the plaintiff died during 1954, predeceased her mother-Chinnavva and therefore, as the death of the mother of the petitioner was before the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, both the Courts below have erred in granting share to the plaintiff. In this regard, he places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Eramma Vs. Veerupana and others, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1879 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, sought to justify the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. In this regard, he places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Eramma Vs. Veerupana and others, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1879 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, sought to justify the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further argued that, as there were three daughters to Mallappa and Chinnavva and all the daughters entitled for equal share of 1/3rd in the suit schedule property and therefore, justify the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below. 9. A perusal of the finding recorded by both the Courts below and after considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, the original propositus – Mallappa had three children namely Kashavva (defendant No.1), Iravva (mother of the plaintiff) and Neelavva (mother of defendant Nos.5 to 7). Undisputably, the property in question belong to Mallappa and he died and in the year 1947, leaving behind his wife-Chinnavva and three daughters. The mother of the plaintiff-Iravva predeceased her mother Chinnavva. The Defendant had taken a plea before the trial Court that, there was an oral partition between the Neelavva and Kashavva in respect of the suit schedule property and the non-suit schedule property mentioned above, however, failed to prove the said oral partition. No independent witnesses were examined by the defendant to prove the oral partition as alleged in the written statement and therefore, both the Courts below rightly rejected the contention of the defendant in respect of the oral partition effected earlier. In respect of the share allotted to the plaintiff by the trial Court, it is not in dispute that, after the death of the Mallappa leaving behind three children and wife-Chinnavva died in the year 1976, plaintiff being the predeceased son of the daughter of Chinnavva entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property in terms of Section 15 of the Act, where it is declared that the son of the predeceased daughter is entitled for share of the Hindu female and therefore, I am of the view that, the Judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant supra is not applicable to the facts on record. That apart, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. That apart, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 , the daughters are equally entitled for share in the property of the father/mother as that of the son and in the present case, in the absence of the son, all the daughters of the Mallappa are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property and therefore, the mother of the plaintiff-Iravva got 1/3rd of the suit schedule property. It is forthcoming from the records that, Sister of the plaintiff – Shakuntala is predeceased and therefore, the plaintiff, being lone legal heir to the deceased Iravva entitled for entire share of the Iravva as the Mitakshara Hindu Law mandates that the daughters are entitled for share of their parents in the absence of the son and in that view of the matter, I do not find any acceptable ground to interfere with the Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission as the defendant No.1(b) has not made out a case for formulation of substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the appeal fails.