JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. 1. RFA No.1202/2019 is filed by defendant No.1 in O.S.No.8157/2010 questioning the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.8157/2010 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short] thereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed in part. Whereas, RFA No.1818/2019 filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.8157/2010 questioning the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8157/2010. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming that one Lakshmana Rao is the original propositus, who had four children namely, the plaintiffs and 1 st defendant and husband of 2 nd defendant. It is pleading of the plaintiffs that the said Lakshmana Rao had acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of a family partition during the year 1957. Therefore, the suit schedule property is joint family and ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants and after the death of said Lakshmana Rao, the plaintiffs and defendants have succeeded to the estate as co-owners. Smt. Mangamma Bai is the wife of Lakshmana Rao, who died on 01.08.1997. The son, namely Gajendra Rao died on 04.10.2007 leaving behind his wife-2 nd defendant and two minor children to succeed to the suit schedule property. 4. Further submitted that there is no partition and the suit schedule property remained and continued as joint family and ancestral property and there is no partition in the family. The plaintiffs upon making demand for partition and claiming their share, but the defendants have refused to do so; hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession. 5. In response to summons issued, the defendants appeared through their Advocate and filed written statement. The plaintiffs upon making demand for partition and claiming their share, but the defendants have refused to do so; hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession. 5. In response to summons issued, the defendants appeared through their Advocate and filed written statement. It is the case of defendant No.1 made out in the written statement that Lakshmana Rao during his lifetime executed a registered Will dated 08.01.1986 in favour of his wife Smt. Mangamma Bai in respect of the suit schedule property and in the said Will, he expressed his wishes and desire that after his death, his wife Mangamma Bai shall be entitled to his estates during her life time and he has not provided any share in the suit schedule property to his daughters i.e., to the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs had been provided adequately during their marriage. The said Lakshmana Rao died on 13.02.1986 leaving behind his wife, two sons and two daughters. Therefore, the sons are having the shares of 50% each, but not to the daughters. Therefore, they claim share of50% each to defendant Nos.1 and 2. 6. Defendant No.2 has also filed the written statement and contended that the defendants are also entitled for 1/4 th share and claimed by metes and bounds being wife of her husband the deceased Gajendra Rao. Therefore, he prayed for declaration of 1/4 th share by metes and bounds in the suit schedule property. According to the pleadings, the trial Court has framed following issues: "1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are having 1/4 th share in the suit properties? 2) Whether the defendant No.1 proves the execution of valid Will dated 8.1.1986 by Late Lakshmana Rao in favour of his wife in respect of suit properties? 3) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that plaintiffs and defendants have sold item No.2 of suit schedule property to Sri.T.Nagaraj by registered sale deed dated 29.4.2002? 4) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that only defendants 1 and 2 are having equal share in the suit properties? 5) Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are entitled for the reliefs prayed? 6) What decree or order?" 7. Plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and produced documents and got marked them as Exs.P1 to P15. 4) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that only defendants 1 and 2 are having equal share in the suit properties? 5) Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are entitled for the reliefs prayed? 6) What decree or order?" 7. Plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW.1 and produced documents and got marked them as Exs.P1 to P15. The Special Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and produced documents and got marked as Exs.D1 to D12. 8. The trial Court has decreed the suit by granting1/4 th share each to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 by metes and bounds. The trial Court has assigned reasons that it is proved that Lakshmana Rao has acquired several properties through a valid partition occurred on 18.10.1957 and thus, the property is ancestral and joint properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, when the relationship between plaintiffs and defendants is proved and the schedule properties are joint family properties, therefore, trial Court decreed the suit by granting 1/4 th share to the plaintiffs and defendants. 9. Being aggrieved, the defendant No.1 has preferred RFA No.1202/2019 and defendant No.2 has preferred RFA No.1818/2019 by raising various grounds in the memorandum of appeal and appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 submitted that Lakshmana Rao has executed registered Will disputing all the properties in favour of his wife Mangamma Bai, who died on 13.02.1986 and there is specific clause in the said Will that no share shall be given to the daughters. They submitted that the plaintiffs and defendants are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties. They submitted that it is the intention of the Lakshmana Rao that no share had been allotted to the daughters, therefore, even after the death of Mangamma Bai also, the daughters were not allotted any share in the suit properties and this was not considered by the trial Court. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that Ex.D2 - Will is not proved as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that Ex.D2 - Will is not proved as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, when the Will is not proved of its execution of the suit schedule properties and admittedly, Lakshmana Rao who is original propositus and after the death of Lakshmana Rao, considering it he has died intestate, the succession is as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly assigned reasons and decreed the partition suit. Hence, it is submitted that there is no need to make any interference in the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 11. After hearing the arguments, the following points would arise for my consideration:- i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances laid in the case, plaintiffs prove the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and arise out of partition? ii. Whether, the points of consideration in the case, the defendants proved that Lakshman Rao has executed registered Will dated 8.1.1986 bequeathing the entire suit schedule properties to the defendants and also by not giving any share to the daughters? iii. Whether, the decree requires any interference by this Court? 12. Relationship between the Plaintiff and defendants are not in dispute. Lakshmana Rao is the original propositor is not in dispute. Mangamma Bai is his wife. Plaintiffs are the daughters, defendant No.1 is son and defendant No.2 husband named Gajendra Rao are sons of Lakshmana Rao and Mangamma Bai also are not in dispute. The second son named Gajendra Rao died on 4.10.2007. In the plaint, it is stated that Lakshmana Rao had acquired the schedule properties in a said partition in 1957 between Lakshmana Rao and his brother and therefore, Lakshmana Rao had become owner of the suit schedule properties. This fact is not disputed by the defendants No.1 and 2. The second son named Gajendra Rao died on 4.10.2007. In the plaint, it is stated that Lakshmana Rao had acquired the schedule properties in a said partition in 1957 between Lakshmana Rao and his brother and therefore, Lakshmana Rao had become owner of the suit schedule properties. This fact is not disputed by the defendants No.1 and 2. It is the contention of defendants that on 08.09.1996 Lakshmana Rao executed a registered Will bequeathing entire property to Mangamma Bai, the wife and also stated that the daughters are not at all having any share in the suit schedule properties, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit properties, but the defendants alone are entitled to half share each. 13. Ex.D2 - Will is registered one. There is no evidence by the defendants in proving the Will - Ex.D2. The legal requirements are that registration of Will is not compulsory or mandatory, but it is optional. The Will has to be proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, atleast by examining one attesting witness, but the defendants have not examined any of the attesting witnesses. Therefore, as per law, Ex.D2 - Will is not proved. 14. Even if, Ex.D.2 Will is said to be proved but as per the Will-Ex.D2, the properties exclusively belongs to his wife Mangamma Bai. Therefore, the will and wishes of the Lakshmana Rao is fulfilled by bequeathing all the properties to his wife Mangamma Bai. Thus, Mangamma Bai had become absolute owner of the said property as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. Admittedly, Mangamma Bai died intestate. Therefore, even if Will is executed by Lakshmana Rao upon death of Mangamma Bai, the succession is as mentioned under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. As discussed above, it is held that the Will is not proved. Therefore, even if applying the law as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, upon death of Lakshmana Rao or if Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act is applied for succession upon death of Mangamma Bai, under these two circumstances and the legal background, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for equal share. Therefore, on both these counts, both plaintiff’s and defendants being Class-I legal heirs of Lakshmana Rao and Mangamma Bai, are entitled for equal share in the schedule properties. Therefore, on both these counts, both plaintiff’s and defendants being Class-I legal heirs of Lakshmana Rao and Mangamma Bai, are entitled for equal share in the schedule properties. 15. When this being the proved facts, the plaintiffs being daughters are also entitled to equal share as that of sons as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and others, AIR 2020 SC 3717 . 16. Though the defendant No. 2 has filed appeal challenging the decree but in her written statement, she herself stated that property be partitioned and give her equal one portion. Therefore, plaintiff No. 2, who is the wife of Gajendra Rao and is entitled to 1/4 th share in the schedule properties. 17. Admittedly the schedule properties are not coparcenary properties. Moreover, execution of Will by Lakshmana Rao in favour of Mangamma Bai is not proved. Even if the Will is proved or not proved, there would not be any difference in governing the inheritance of properties to the plaintiffs and defendants as per Section 8 and Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, as described above. Therefore, the trial Court is correct in its finding by granting decree of partition and granting 1/4 th share each in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 is the negative and Point No.2 in the affirmative and point No.3 in the negative. 18. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: i. The appeals are dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree dated05.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.8157/2010 by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16), is confirmed. iii. No order as to costs.