JUDGMENT 1. The appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 24/7/2019 passed in O.S.No.774/2014 on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court' for brevity), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession and to declare that the registered partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 is created and not binding on the plaintiffs' share, which was confirmed in R.A.No.108/2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for brevity) vide judgment and decree ydtd. 24/11/2020. 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, the plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.774/2014 against defendant Nos.1 to 5 for partition and separate possession of the Schedule Property. The Schedule appended to the plaint refers to the agricultural land, measuring 6 acres in Sy.No.107/1, situated at Santhekadur Village, Nidige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein. 4. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 and one Sri S.K.Parameshwarappa are the children of late Sri S.K.Krishnappa. Defendant No.1 is his wife. Sri S.K.Parameshwarappa died leaving behind his wife who is arrayed as defendant No.2. Thus, the plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of the Hindu Undivided Family. They are in joint possession of the Schedule Property. 5. It is contended that the Schedule Property was granted in favour Sri S.K.Krishnappa by the Special Tahsildar vide order dtd. 28/2/1981 passed in LRF(T)STK 1144/74-75. The plaintiffs and the defendants were cultivating the Schedule Property. After the death of Sri S.K.Krishnappa, the property was mutated in the name of defendant No.1 being wife of late S.K.Krishnappa. It is stated that there was no partition between the family members and all the members were jointly cultivating and were enjoying the property. When the plaintiffs demanded for effecting partition and allotting their share, the defendants started giving evasive answer. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice calling upon the defendants to effect division of the Schedule Property by metes and bounds. The defendants have refused to take notice. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are managed to mutate their names in the revenue records on the basis of the partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998. Hence, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice calling upon the defendants to effect division of the Schedule Property by metes and bounds. The defendants have refused to take notice. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants are managed to mutate their names in the revenue records on the basis of the partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have colluded with one another and entered into such partition behind the back of the plaintiffs with mala-fide intention and to make wrongful gain. Therefore, the partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 is not binding on the plaintiffs. It is stated that the cause of action of the suit arose on 10/7/2014 when the plaintiffs demanded their legitimate share and on 15/10/2014, when they got issued the legal notice to effect partition by metes and bounds. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed for partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share in the Schedule Property by metes and bounds by declaring that the partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 as concocted and not binding on the plaintiffs. 6. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and her legal representatives being defendant Nos.2 to 5, were brought on record. 7. The defendants have appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement admitting the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants and their father being S.K.Krishnappa and the husband of defendant No.2- S.K.Parameshwarappa being one of the son of S.K.Krishnappa and defendant No.1. It is denied that there was a joint family in joint possession of the Schedule Property. The contention of the plaintiffs that the Schedule Property was granted in favour of S.K.Krishnappa by the Special Tahsildar vide order dtd. 28/2/1981 is admitted. But it is denied that the property was being cultivated jointly by all the children of S.K.Krishnappa. It is stated that initially the revenue documents were standing in the name of S.K.Krishnappa and after his death, it was mutated in the names of the defendants and all the defendants were cultivating the same. All other contentions taken by the plaintiffs are denied in total. 8. It is also contented that plaintiff No.1 got married during 1974 and plaintiff No.2 married during 1980. Loans were raised to perform their marriages and the same were repaid by the defendants. It was only the defendants who were living and cultivating the Schedule Property jointly. All other contentions taken by the plaintiffs are denied in total. 8. It is also contented that plaintiff No.1 got married during 1974 and plaintiff No.2 married during 1980. Loans were raised to perform their marriages and the same were repaid by the defendants. It was only the defendants who were living and cultivating the Schedule Property jointly. They have effected partition of the Schedule Property under the registered partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998. The plaintiffs were also present at the time of entering into partition and expressed their desire not to claim any share and they are satisfied with the cash paid to them by their father at the time of marriage. It was treated in lieu of their share. Therefore, the said partition effected between the defendants is binding on the plaintiffs. It is stated that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and they cannot seek declaration and they cannot ignore the partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998. There is no cause of action for the suit. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 9. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues; 1) "Whether the plaintiffs proves that they and the defendants are the members of Hindu Joint family? 2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the suit schedule property is their joint family property? 3) Whether the plaintiffs have share in the suit schedule property? 4) Whether the plaintiffs also prove that the registered partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 is executed and concocted document and not binding their share? 5) Whether suit is properly valued and court fee paid is correct? 6) Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have taken Rs.1, 00, 000.00 (Rupees One Lakh Only) each prior to partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 towards their share and gave up their rights in the suit schedule property? 7) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation? 8) What order or decree?" 10. Plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 in support of her contention. Defendant No.2 examined herself as DW-1 and no documents were marked in support of her defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 6 in the 'Negative' and issue No.7 in the 'Affirmative' and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs. 11. Defendant No.2 examined herself as DW-1 and no documents were marked in support of her defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 6 in the 'Negative' and issue No.7 in the 'Affirmative' and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs have preferred R.A.No.108/2019 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, came to the conclusion that there are no merits in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 24/11/2020, confirming the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 24/7/2019 passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 12. Heard Sri Varadaraj Ranganatha Rao Havaldar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the respondents. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the relationship between the parties is admitted. It is also admitted that the Schedule Property was granted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the 'KLR Act' for short) by the Special Tahsildar. After the death of S.K.Krishnappa, his wife- defendant No.1 and the children- the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 5 and the wife of pre-deceased son- Parameshwarappa i.e., defendant No.2 are entitled for equal share in the Schedule Property. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in forming concurrent opinion that the married daughters are not entitled for share in the land that was granted under the KLR Act. In view of Sec. 2(12) of the KLR Act, the finding of the Courts below that the suits of the plaintiffs are barred by limitation is also erroneous. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs is to be decreed as prayed for and the plaintiffs are to be declared as entitled for 1/6thshare in the Schedule Property. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal. 14. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs is to be decreed as prayed for and the plaintiffs are to be declared as entitled for 1/6thshare in the Schedule Property. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the appeal submitted that even though the relationship and acquisition of right over the Schedule Property are admitted by the defendants, the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. The defendants have entered into a registered partition deed dtd. 19/8/1988, where under the Schedule Property was partitioned amongst them. The plaintiffs who are very well aware of the registered partition deed, have not chosen to challenge the same till filing of the suit i.e., 2014. The suit came to be filed after long lapse of 16 years. Thus, the suit is barred by limitation. 15. It is further contended that in view of Sec. 2(12) of the KLR Act, the married daughters are excluded. Therefore, they are not entitled for any share. He submitted that in view of Sec. 2 of the KLR Act, the estate is heritable only to the heirs i.e., sons of the testator. The plaintiffs being the daughters are not entitled for any share. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court on proper appreciation of materials on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. There are no reasons to interfere with the same. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal with costs. 16. The appeal was admitted vide order dtd. 26/8/2022 to consider the following substantial questions of law; 1) "Whether both the Courts below erred in denying a share to the plaintiffs who are the daughters of Late Krishnappa.S.K, when admittedly the suit land was granted to the father of plaintiffs namely, Krishnappa.S.K as per Ex.P.2? 2) Whether the finding of both the Courts below that plaintiffs being daughters are not entitled for share in the suit land being a tenanted land is perverse, palpably erroneous and contrary to clinching evidence which indicate that competent authority namely Tahasildar has granted the suit land in favour of Krishnappa.S.K and after his death the property would devolve upon his legal heirs under Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?" 17. Perused the materials including the trial Court records, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. 18. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that they are the daughters of late S.K.Krishnappa. Defendant No.1 is the wife of said S.K.Krishnappa. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are his sons. One Parameshwaraappa was also son of S.K.Krishnappa, but he died leaving behind his wife defendant No.2, it is contended that S.K.Krishnappa was granted with the Schedule Property by the Special Tahsildar under the KLR Act. These facts are admitted by both the parties. When these facts are admitted by the defendants, the contention of the plaintiffs that they being the daughters of S.K.Krishnappa are also entitled for equal share will have to be accepted, in view of the amended Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. However, it is the contention of the defendants that after the death of S.K.Krishnappa, his legal representatives have entered into a registered partition on 19/8/1998 which is produced by the plaintiffs as per Ex.P3. Since admittedly there is partition between the members of the family as per Ex.P3, the proviso to Sec. 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 comes into operation. 19. The proviso to Sec. 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act is an exception to Sec. 6(1)(a) to (c). The proviso refers to any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before 20/12/2004. Admittedly, the defendants have entered into a registered partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 as per Ex.P3. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others, AIR 2020 SC 3717 . in support of their contention. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para Nos.126, 129 (ii) held as under; "126. The protection of rights of daughters as coparcener is envisaged in the substituted Sec. 6 of the Act of 1956 recognises the partition brought about by a decree of a court or effected by a registered instrument. The partition so effected before 20/12/2004 is saved. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para Nos.126, 129 (ii) held as under; "126. The protection of rights of daughters as coparcener is envisaged in the substituted Sec. 6 of the Act of 1956 recognises the partition brought about by a decree of a court or effected by a registered instrument. The partition so effected before 20/12/2004 is saved. " x x x x x "129 (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9/9/2005 with savings as provided in Sec. 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004." 21. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma (surpa) makes the position clear that the registered partition deed entered into between the defendants as per Ex.P3 which is dtd. 19/8/1998 is recognized under the proviso to Sec. 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and the same is saved from the effect of Sec. 6 (1)(a) to (c). 22. Learned counsel for the appellants refers to para No.116 of the decision in Vineeta Sharma (supra) to contend that in spite of there being family settlement, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the daughters are entitled for the share in the family property. In para No.116 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court refers to the defence of oral partition and/or the unregistered memorandum of partition that are being put forth by the parties and possibility of such defence being taken fraudulently or in collusion with one another, held that such partitions are not recognized under Sec. 6(5) of the Hindu Succession Act. In para No.117 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court refers to its decision in Kale Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119 : ( AIR 1976 SC 807 . referring to family settlement and its binding effect. It is held that any such family settlement must be a bona-fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the members of the family. It is also held that such settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence. 23. It is held that any such family settlement must be a bona-fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the members of the family. It is also held that such settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence. 23. But in the case on hand, it is not a case of family settlement or oral partition or any memorandum of partition, but the defendants are relying on the admitted document Ex.P3, i.e., the registered partition deed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in that regard cannot be accepted. The other decisions relied on by the appellants are all render much prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma and therefore, the same are not relevant for consideration. 24. The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the daughters ceased to be the members of father's family on their marriage and since the plaintiffs are married daughters, they are not entitled for any share. The Court had referred to Sec. 2(12) of the KLA Act, which defines the word 'family' which reads as under; "2(12) "family" means:- (a) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, suchindividual, the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and unmarried daughters, if any; (b) in the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters; (c) in the case of an individual who is a divorced person and who has not remarried, such individual and his minor sons and unmarried daughters, whether in his custody or not; and (d) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried daughters." (emphasis supplied) 25. Bare reading of the above makes it clear that both the minor sons and the unmarried daughters are included in the definition of 'family'. In other words, the major sons and the married daughters are excluded from the definition. If the married daughters are to be excluded by invoking Sec. 2(12) of the Act, the major sons are also required to be excluded. In other words, the major sons and the married daughters are excluded from the definition. If the married daughters are to be excluded by invoking Sec. 2(12) of the Act, the major sons are also required to be excluded. Both the Courts have committed an error in holding that only married daughters are excluded from the purview and they are not the members of the family of their father, once they are married. 26. Sec. 24 of the KLR Act refers to the rights of tenements to be heritable. Sec. 2(12) of the KLR Act clearly defines the word 'family' which includes only the minor sons and the unmarried daughters and the major sons and the married daughters are specificially excluded. But in view of the amended Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughter is also considered to be coparcener by birth in the same manner as that of a son having equal right over the family properties. The exception contained in the said general rule is provided under the proviso to Sec. 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act which is referred to above. Where there are disposition or alienation or partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before 20/12/2004, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma (Supra) made it clear that such dispositions are saved. 27. Thus, the position of law is well settled and Ex.P3- the registered partition deed comes within the saving clause provided as proviso to Sec. 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and saves the registered partition deed. Therefore, the plaintiffs even though they are the daughters who are otherwise entitled for equal share as coparceners, are not entitled for such share in the present case, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 28. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are right in denying the rights of the plaintiffs for equal share in the Schedule Property. 29. Both the Courts have held that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, as they are seeking to declare the registered partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 is not binding on the plaintiffs' share. The suit was filed on 11/11/2014. Thus, the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation to seek such relief. 30. 29. Both the Courts have held that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, as they are seeking to declare the registered partition deed dtd. 19/8/1998 is not binding on the plaintiffs' share. The suit was filed on 11/11/2014. Thus, the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation to seek such relief. 30. Therefore, even though the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled for share, since they are married daughters, the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts are justifiable, in view of the proviso to Sec. 6(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Substantial question of law refered to above are answered accordingly. 31. In the result, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as claimed in the plaint. Hence, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed with costs. (ii) The judgment and decreed dtd. 24/7/2019 in O.S.No.774/2014 on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, which is confirmed by the judgment and decree dtd. 24/11/2020 in R.A.No.108/2 019 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Shivamogga, is hereby confirmed. (iii) Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- JUDGE PN