JUDGMENT : P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated September 09, 2011 in O.S. No. 6319/1994 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court. 3. Plaintiff's case is, one Adappa was the propostius of the family. He had three sons namely Ashwathappa, Narayanaswamappa and Hanumanthappa. After Adappa's death, the joint family properties were divided among his sons vide partition deed dated October 24, 1957. The family tree is as follows: I, Sumithramma, state and written the above Genealogical is Tree are true and correct and signed before: Witness: 1. Sd/- 2. Sd/- Signed Before me Sd/- A.M.Sudhakara, Village Accountant Bytarayanapura Circle. "(sic) 4. Aswathappa and Narayanaswamappa continued to enjoy their share in properties jointly whereas Hanumanthappa separated himself from the joint family. Plaintiff No.1 and Defendants No. 1 to 6 are the sons of Narayanswamappa and Plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are his daughters. Ashwathappa had two wives namely Gangamma and Venkatanarasamma, and they had no issues. 5. Narayanswamappa and Ashwathappa died intestate on December 25, 1975 and July 21, 1978 respectively. Gangamma and Venkatanarasamma died on March 2, 1985 and October 03, 1991 respectively. The first defendant namely N.Venkatram acted as Karta of the joint family and he was managing the suit properties. 6. When the plaintiffs demanded partition of the properties jointly belonging to Ashwathappa and Narayanswamappa, the first defendant did not accede to their demand. Defendants No. 1 to 5 were making efforts to alienate the schedule properties and deprive plaintiffs of their legitimate shares. Hence, plaintiffs brought the instant suit for partition and separate possession. 7. The first defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement he has admitted the relationship between the parties and also the partition dated October 24, 1957. He has contented inter alia that the suit properties are coparcenery family properties of the first plaintiff and the defendants. As a kartha of the joint family, he had managed the properties till April 13, 1985 and thereafter parties were living separately. He has denied the allegation that he and other defendants had deprived the plaintiffs of their share in the property. As a kartha of the joint family, he had managed the properties till April 13, 1985 and thereafter parties were living separately. He has denied the allegation that he and other defendants had deprived the plaintiffs of their share in the property. He could not accept the demand for partition by the plaintiffs as he had ceased to be the Karta and his attempts to partition the joint family properties were opposed by other defendants. 8. His further case is, item No.22 of the schedule property is the self-acquired property of Ashwathappa and subsequent to his death, his wives Gangamma and Venkatanarasamma have filed a declaration, by virtue of which he had become the absolute owner of the said property. Item No.9 of the schedule property was sold by first defendant for the benefit of family and the said sale was within the knowledge of the first and seventh plaintiffs. First defendant is the absolute owner of Items No. 3, 9, 17 and 24. 9. The second and fourth defendants filed a common written statement resisting the suit. The relationship between the parties and partition in the year 1957 is admitted. They have denied that, subsequent to Ashwathappa's death, the properties of Ashwathappa and Narayanswamappa were enjoyed together as joint family properties. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 were married long time back and they are not members of joint family. The properties which belonged to Narayanaswamappa were agreed to be partitioned and the same was done vide agreement for partition dated April 13, 1984. As per the said agreement, properties were divided among first plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiffs had the knowledge of the same. After the said partition in 1984, necessary changes have been made in the khatha and other records. 10. Out of love and affection, first plaintiff and defendants have given sites and cash to plaintiffs No.2 to 5, the details of which have been mentioned in the agreement for partition. The plaintiffs were fully aware of the 1984 partition and they had accepted the same. With these averments, defendants No.2 and 4 sought for dismissal of the suit. 11. Third and sixth defendants have also opposed the suit by filing a common written statement. They do not dispute the relationship between the parties and the 1957 partition. The plaintiffs were fully aware of the 1984 partition and they had accepted the same. With these averments, defendants No.2 and 4 sought for dismissal of the suit. 11. Third and sixth defendants have also opposed the suit by filing a common written statement. They do not dispute the relationship between the parties and the 1957 partition. They have denied that, subsequent to Ashwathappa's death, the properties of Ashwathappa and Narayanswamappa were enjoyed together as a joint family property. According to them, plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 were married long time back, hence, they do not become members of the joint family. It is further contended that first defendant had alienated most of the properties which had come to his share. Defendants No. 3 and 6 were adopted by Ashwathappa and succeeded to his properties. Defendants No. 3 and 6 had instigated the plaintiffs to file the suit. The properties belonging to Narayanswamappa were partitioned vide partition agreement dated April 13, 1984. 12. It is further stated that item No. 2 of the suit property is the exclusive property of sixth defendant. The first plaintiff and other defendants have got their shares in the property belonging to Ashwathappa. However, after accepting earlier partition, they have filed the instant suit for fresh partition. They were not in possession of the suit properties as on the date of suit. With these averments, the third and sixth defendants have sought for dismissal of the suit. 13. Based on the pleadings, the learned Trial Court has framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sons of Narayanappa and the widows Ashwathappa continued to enjoy the suit schedule properties jointly after the partition of the ancestral properties on 24.10.1957? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the shares as claimed in para 7 of the plaint and for separate possession of the same by metes and bounds? 4. Whether the defendants prove that the partition deed dated 24.10.1957 was acted upon and there was severance of status as such the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit? 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? 6. Whether the suit is bad in law for limitation? 7. Whether the defendants prove that the partition deed dated 24.10.1957 was acted upon and there was severance of status as such the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit? 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? 6. Whether the suit is bad in law for limitation? 7. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the first defendant is the karta of the joint family as parties to suit? 8. Whether the defendants prove that the first defendant is the karta of the joint family as parties to the suit? 9. Whether the first defendants prove that item No.17 is his self-acquired property 10. To what order or decree? 14. Subsequently, following two additional issues have also been framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff No.2 to 4 are entitled for benefit under the Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005? 2. Whether the defendants prove previous partition of 1984? 15. With the above pleadings and issues parties went to the trial. 16. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs No. 1 and 5 were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exs. P1 to P55 marked. Defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.4 and Exs. D1 to D371 marked. Answering issues No. 4 to 6 and additional issue No.2 in the affirmative and issues No. 1 to 3, 7, 8 and additional issue No.1 in the negative, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit. 17. We have heard Shri. D.R. Sundaresh, learned Advocate for appellants No.1, 2, and 4; Shri. R.B. Sadasivappa, learned Advocate for appellant No.3; Shri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1; Shri. A. Madhusudhan Rao, learned Advocate for respondents No.3(A & B); Shri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned Advocate for respondent No.7; Shri. Srivatsa, learned Senior Advocate and Shri. C. Shankar Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.12. 18. The Trial Court, while dismissing the suit has held that agreement to partition dated 13.04.1984 is acted upon and therefore the suit properties are not available for partition. The Trial Court has held that Narayanswamappa's daughters were not entitled to any share in the joint family properties as they were born prior to 1956. 19. Shri. Uday Holla, for respondent No.1, praying to allow the appeal, submitted that: an Agreement for Partition dated 13.04.1984 was entered into between sons of Narayanaswamappa excluding the daughters of Narayanaswamappa. The Trial Court has held that Narayanswamappa's daughters were not entitled to any share in the joint family properties as they were born prior to 1956. 19. Shri. Uday Holla, for respondent No.1, praying to allow the appeal, submitted that: an Agreement for Partition dated 13.04.1984 was entered into between sons of Narayanaswamappa excluding the daughters of Narayanaswamappa. The parties therein had agreed to enter into a registered partition deed on a future date. Therefore, the said agreement cannot be construed as partition deed; during the pendency of the present appeal, Respondent No.1 has sold item No.1 of the suit property with the leave of this Court. As third parties have acquired right in respect of those properties, any order passed by this Court will affect them adversely, therefore those properties have to be excluded from the hotch potch and to treat the said property as share of Respondent No.1; the Division Bench of this Court in Lookamani v. Mahadevamma, ILR 2015 Kar 5095, has held that oral partition or even an unregistered partition deed cannot be treated as a partition for the purpose of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that the rights of the daughters to claim equal share as coparceners remains unaffected by such unregistered partition deed; the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, (2020) 9 SCC 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'Vineeta Sharma Case'), has held that daughters are also coparceners and therefore entitled to equal share in the property and HUF includes the daughters; the Apex Court in Danamma and Another v. Amar and Others, 2018 (3) SCC 343 , has held that daughters born prior to 2005 are entitled to share in the property. 20. Shri. Sadashivappa, for plaintiff No. 5, praying to allow the appeal, submitted that: Shri. N. Chennakeshavamurthy and Shri. N. Adiramu were never adopted by Ashwathappa as pleaded by them; Agreement for Partition dated 13.04.1984, is not binding on plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 (daughters of Late A. Narayanaswamappa) because they are not signatories to the said agreement; though it is alleged in the agreement that Kanthamma (plaintiff No.5) was allotted 2 sites and also 1½ guntas of house located in Sy.No.2 of Amruthahalli and also Rs. 30,000/-, she was not given any money or properties; similarly, the contention that Jalajakshamma (plaintiff No.2), Sumithramma (plaintiff No.3) and Bhagyamma (plaintiff No.4) were given 2 sites each is also factually incorrect; the agreement to partition, is also not signed by the two wives of A. Ashwathappa even though they were alive as on the date of the agreement for partition; in the wedding cards of N. Chennakeshavamurthy and Adiramu, Ashwathappa is shown as their father but in the revenue records, they are shown as sons of Narayanaswamappa; the Trial Court has erred in holding that plaintiffs are not entitled for the partition on the ground that they were born prior to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 coming into force. 21. Opposing the appeal, Shri. Madhusudan Rao, for defendant No. 3 and Shri. Srivatsa for defendant No. 12 submitted that defendant No. 3 (Channakeshava Murty) and defendant No. 12 (N. Adiram) were adopted by Ashwathappa and his two wives. Therefore, the properties belonging to Ashwathappa devolve upon them and plaintiffs do not have any share in the suit properties. 22. Shri. C. Shankar Reddy, submitted that after 1984 partition, all parties have sold different pieces of land but defendant No.7 has retained his properties. Since other shareholders in 1984 partition have alienated their respective properties, they shall not have any share in the properties of defendant No.7. Partition cannot be effected only in respect of the remaining properties and shall adversely affect defendant No.7's interest. 23. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the record. 24. In the light of pleadings and evidence on record, the point that arises for consideration is: i. Whether the impugned judgment and decree calls for interference? 25. Undisputed facts of the case are, Adappa had three sons, by name Ashwathappa, Narayanswamappa and Hanumanthappa. First son, Ashwathappa had two wives, namely Gangamma and Venkatanarasamma. Gangamma died on 02.03.1985 and Venkatanarasamma died on 03.10.1991. Ashwathappa, died issueless. 26. In this appeal, parties who are children of Narayanaswamappa are claiming share in the properties belonging to Ashwathappa and Narayanaswamappa. 27. There is no dispute in respect of relationship of the parties and the partition was effected in 1957. The joint family status is also not in dispute. 28. Plaintiffs' specific case is, they were not made parties to the 1984 partition and the same is also not acted upon. 27. There is no dispute in respect of relationship of the parties and the partition was effected in 1957. The joint family status is also not in dispute. 28. Plaintiffs' specific case is, they were not made parties to the 1984 partition and the same is also not acted upon. In view of Vineeta Sharma's Case, the daughters are also coparceners and therefore entitled to equal share in the property. 29. Defendants' case is, 1984 partition has been acted upon. Therefore, plaintiff's are not entitled for their share. 30. On 13.04.1984, Ex. D185 and Ex. P10 (Agreement to Partition) has been executed by and between sons of Narayanaswamappa in respect of properties belonging to Ashwathappa and Narayanaswamappa. Admittedly, Ashwathappa's wives namely, Gangamma and Venkatanarasamma were not made parties and Narayanaswamappa's daughters were also not made parties to the said agreement to partition. As per the said agreement, parties therein had agreed to draw a separate partition deed. Admittedly, no partition deed was executed pursuant to the said agreement. The relevant clause reads as follows: "Having agreed to partition the movable properties so far not divided as said above, they have agreed to partition the immovable properties as shown hereunder and hereby have agreed to have the Registered partition deed executed or caused to be executed at the earliest on survey and fixing of boundaries correctly of the parties coming to the shares of each parties as agreed which will take considerable time, the delay which will be determined to their interest and look after the agricultural lands". 31. With the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 coming into force, daughters are coparceners by birth. They are entitled for equal share in the joint family properties as held in Vineeta Sharma's Case. 32. In view of the settled position in law, the finding recorded by the Trial Court in para 42 of the impugned judgment holding that plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are not entitled to the share in property as they were born before 1956 is perverse and unsustainable in law. 33. We may record that vide order dated 06.02.2018, Respondent No.12 was permitted to sell suit item No. 8 to the extent of 40.47 guntas. Further vide order dated 04.12.2018, Respondent No. 12 was permitted to enter into a JDA dated 27.06.2019 in respect of the said property to an extent of 40.47 guntas of land in item No.8. 34. 33. We may record that vide order dated 06.02.2018, Respondent No.12 was permitted to sell suit item No. 8 to the extent of 40.47 guntas. Further vide order dated 04.12.2018, Respondent No. 12 was permitted to enter into a JDA dated 27.06.2019 in respect of the said property to an extent of 40.47 guntas of land in item No.8. 34. Further, vide order dated 06.03.2019, Respondent No.1, was permitted to sell item No.3 (Sy No. 2/2, 1 acre 10 guntas) measuring 1 acre 10 guntas. It was submitted that the first respondent has sold the same by executing a sale deed dated 25.03.2019. 35. We have held that plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are entitled for equal share. In respect of suit item No.8, respondent No.12 has entered into a JDA. Respondent No. 1 has sold 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy No. 2/2. These transactions have taken place with the permission of this Court. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 shall be entitled for their 1/11th share in the proceeds of sale transaction of item No.3 (Sy.No.2/2) and 1/11th share in the benefits flowing by virtue of JDA in respect of item No.8 (Sy.49). 36. Hence, the following: ORDER i) Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and decree dated September 09, 2011 in O.S. No. 6319/1994 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is set-aside. iii) Suit by plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 is decreed holding that they shall be entitled for equal shares in the suit schedule properties including their 1/11th share in the proceeds of sale transaction of item No.3 (Sy.No.2/2) and 1/11th share in the benefits flowing by virtue of JDA in respect of item No.8 (Sy.49). No costs.