JUDGMENT : V. SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri B.L.Nanda Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri C.V. Sudhindra and Sri N. Vageesh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants challenging the validity of the judgment of dismissal of the suit bearing O.S No.82/2000 dated 20.02.2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nanjanagudu. 3. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Trial Court. 4. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs with the following prayer in respect of the following properties hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’. “WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased pass a Judgment and Decree: (a) Effecting the partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and further declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/12 share, each in the suit schedule property fallen into the share of the deceased Sri.K.A. Anantha Padmanabha Rao, and put the plaintiffs in separate possession and enjoyment of the same. (b) to award mesne profits to the plaintiffs (3) directing the defendant No.7 not to accept or admit the execution of the sale deed to any persons, (d) such other order/relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY “All that piece and parcel of the immovable house property bearing No.3844, "Eshwar Prasad", 15th cross, Rastrapathi Road, Nanjangud, Mysore district measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 88 feet, with tiled roof and mud roof bounded on: Direction Description East Road West Conservancy lane North Private property South Private property 5. In the plaint, it is contented that father of the plaintiffs namely Sri K.A.Padmanabha Rao has inherited the suit property. The suit property remained joint and it was not partitioned. Defendant No.6 being the brother of the plaintiffs, taking advantage of death of Padmanabha Rao who died on 11.11.1996, sold the property in favour of defendant No.8- H.S.Ramesh, by way of a registered sale deed. 6. It is contended that, initially the property was acquired by Krishnappa who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant No.6. Said Krishnappa having died intestate, the property was inherited by Padmanabha Rao. 6. It is contended that, initially the property was acquired by Krishnappa who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant No.6. Said Krishnappa having died intestate, the property was inherited by Padmanabha Rao. Therefore, sixth defendant selling the suit property in favour of the eighth defendant is incorrect and did not bind the rights of the plaintiffs and thus sought for decreeing of the suit. 7. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 entered appearance through Advocate Sri Suresh. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 were placed ex-parte. Defendant No.7 though appeared did not choose to file written statement. 8. Defendant No.1 filed the written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and plaintiffs being the daughters, are not entitled to file such a suit for partition in respect of the suit property which got concluded even during the lifetime of Sri Padmanabha Rao in the year 1988. 9. Relationship of the parties, no doubt being admitted by the defendants, they contended that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are not the joint family members and therefore plaintiffs have no right in respect of the suit property. 10. Defendant No.1 also denied the fact that he clandestinely sold four items of the joint family properties measuring about 9½ acres of fertile land in Nallitarpura Village, Hullahally Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk in the year 1968. Other averments in the plaint, attributing malafides to 6 th defendant were also denied by the 6 th defendant. 11. In the separate written statement, 6 th defendant also contended that there was a memorandum of partition on12.10.1988 between K.A.Padmanabha Rao and defendant Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the suit property and defendant No.6 along with his father-Padmanabha Rao received Rs.50,000/- being the 1/4 th share in the suit property. 12. Plaintiffs and 6 th defendant including the mother Smt.Prema thus have no right or title in respect of the suit property and sought for dismissal of the suit. 13. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised following issues. “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6? 2. 13. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised following issues. “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6? 2. Whether the defendants prove that in the year 1988, the father of the plaintiffs and the 6 th defendant has executed a Memorandum of Partition by receiving Rs.50,000/- towards his share in the suit properties and hence, the father of the plaintiffs himself had no right to claim partition in the suit properties? 3. Whether the 1 st defendant proves that plaintiffs being daughters are not entitled to file this suit for partition and separate possession? 4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for 1/12 th share in the suit properties? 5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 3 rd defendant is enjoying the suit properties illegally and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree as prayed for? 7. To what order or decree?” 14. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, Smt.Geetha- first plaintiff got examined herself as PW-1 and two witnesses namely K.Mahadeva and K Prema Rao as PWs-2 and 3. 15. On behalf of the plaintiffs, five documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-5 comprising of family tree, copy of the legal notice, photographs and certified copy of the sale deed. 16. As against the material evidence placed on record on behalf of the plaintiffs, K.Balasubramanyam-first defendant got examined himself as DW-1 and purchaser of the suit property namely H.S.Ramesha-8 th defendant got examined himself as DW-2. 17. On behalf of the defendants, family settlement deed is marked as Ex.D-1. 18. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by the impugned judgment, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 19. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs have filed the present appeal on the following grounds. “The learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the property in question was remained un-partitioned and has not lost the joint family status and the appellants are entitled to 1/12 share in the schedule property. 19. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs have filed the present appeal on the following grounds. “The learned Court below has failed to appreciate that the property in question was remained un-partitioned and has not lost the joint family status and the appellants are entitled to 1/12 share in the schedule property. It is submitted that the learned court below erred to note that the respondents relaying on the purported document as partition deed, which was not a registered one and further the same is a concocted and fabricated one and the alleged deed cannot be named either as a partition deed or settlement deed. It is submitted that subsequent to the filing of the suit, the respondent 1 to 6, conveniently fabricated, concocted and forged the signatures of the deceased Sri, K.A. Padmanabha Rao, which does not tally the original signature of Sri. K.A. Padmanabha Rao. It is submitted that at that point of time the court below raised the objections, stating that the said document was not registered and accordingly necessary stamp duty to be paid for the alleged document relied upon by the defendants 1 to 6. It is submitted that the court below without appreciating the same believed the version of the respondent, in arriving to the conclusion, that the schedule property was partitioned. It is submitted that the learned court have not perused the document in close, On careful Perusal of the said Memorandum of Partition relied upon the respondent 1 to 6, creates suspicion and doubt on the document on the following: (a) The memorandum of partition, is not a registered document, which is dated 10-10- 1988. (b) The Heading of the document reads as Memorandum dated 12th day of October 1988. (c) The last line of the First page of the said document reads that a family settlement but not as a partition deed. (d) Whereas para 3 of Second page of the deed reads, as hereunder:"Whereas the first of the fourth party was managing all the joint family properties and in the course of manging the joint family properties stealthily and Surreptitiously, without the acceptance and the knowledge of the other parties sold away Nine and Half acres of fertile land Nallitarpura village, Hullahalli hobli, Nanjangud Taluk for Rs. 30,000/-, three and quarter acre of garden with 120 coconut trees, 4 mango trees, on soolor village, parushram Kshetra, Nanjjangud Taluk, for Rs.12,000/-one and quarter acre wet land in Gulur village Nanjangud taluk for Rs. 4,000/- one Tamrind grove of about 2 acres with crop yielding trees on the banks of Gudlu river in Nanjundgu for Rs. 2000/- and appropriated all the entitle sale proceeds of these immovable properties for himself and to the requirement and advantage of his family". It is clear from the above that while Mr. K.A. Padmanabha Rao, to affix the signature for such of a document containing the above contents, being a Government Servant, educated, will he venture forward to affix his signature. Further, the alleged document was prepared and fabricated for the convenience of the defendants, for filing the written statement. (e) Signatures of the parties to the documents is not forth coming on the second page. (f) Signatures of the parties to the fourth page (page 4 of the document) is not forth coming. (g) In para 11 page 5 of the document which reads that "the fourth party hereby confirms that he or his family member have no right or title or interest in the schedule property", which goes to that the respondent have already anticipated that the appellants would file the above suit for partition, there by clearly goes to show that the said document is completely fabricated and concocted one. (h) The signature of the appellants father is also not tallying with the original signature of Sri. K.A. Padmanabha Rao, on pages 1 3 and 5 of the said alleged document. (i) Whereas the Witness Signature of Sri. H.S. Sathyanaraya Rao, who is none other than the father in-law of defendant No.6 and the marriage of his daughter with respondent No.6, had taken place in the year 1994, till such time the said Witness Sri. H.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, was stranger to the family, but whereas the alleged document was said to be executed on 12-10-1988, which clearly goes to show that the said document is a fabricated one and the same was prepared and concocted for the purpose of the above case. It is further submitted that the court below has taken a contention in dismissing the appeal stating that the appellants have not re-joinder to the written statement filed by the respondents. It is further submitted that the court below has taken a contention in dismissing the appeal stating that the appellants have not re-joinder to the written statement filed by the respondents. Whereas in the course of the cross-examination, the appellants denied about the execution of the alleged partition deed and the same has not been considered by the trial court. It is submitted that the respondent No.8, who is a purchaser of the property in question subsequent to the filing of the suit, though the provision of Lis pendence attracts, despite which the respondent No.8, purchased the property, but the court below strangely arrived to the conclusion, that the property in question has been already sold to respondent No.8, by the respondents 1 to 5, which is highly illegal.” 20. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri Nanda Kumar reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the suit property earlier belonged to Krishnappa who died intestate. Therefore, Padmanabha Rao held the property as kartha. He further contended that excluding the rights of the plaintiffs and Padmanabha Rao, entering into memorandum of partition is thus not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and sought for allowing the appeal. 21. He would also contend that learned Trial Judge failed to note that the daughters being unmarried, had the right, title and interest in the suit property and therefore rejecting the suit by the impugned judgment is thus incorrect and sought for allowing the appeal. 22. Per contra, Sri C.V.Sudhindra, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri N.Vageesh, learned counsel representing defendant No.8 supports the impugned judgment. 23. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing respondent No.7 submits that 7 th defendant he is only a formal party and no relief is claimed against him. 24. Sri C.V.Sudhindra and Sri Vageesh, in unison would contend that there is no semblance of right in the plaintiffs to maintain the suit itself which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment. 25. They would further contend that the plaintiffs would not have claimed any right over the suit property based on the ground that the suit property belonged to their grandfather viz., Krishnappa, who died intestate. 26. 25. They would further contend that the plaintiffs would not have claimed any right over the suit property based on the ground that the suit property belonged to their grandfather viz., Krishnappa, who died intestate. 26. They would also invite the attention of the Court that the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in the form of Section 6(a) did not grant any right assuming that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have got any right over the suit property and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 27. In view of the rival contention of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the plaintiffs make out that they have right over the suit property on the ground that the property earlier belonged to their grandfather Sri Krishnappa? (ii) If so whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the share in the suit property. (iii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference? (iv) What Order? 28. REGARDING POINT Nos.1 to 3: These points are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition of discussion. 29. In the case on hand, genealogical tree marked at Ex.P-1 is not in dispute which is culled out hereunder for ready reference. 30. Admittedly property belonged to Krishnappa who died intestate. Property was therefore inherited by his children viz., Balasubramanyam, Garudapuri Rao, Padmanabha Rao, Narayana Rao, K. Rajagopal and Smt.Venkatalakshamma and Smt. Indira. 31. At the most, plaintiffs are entitled for a share in the 1/6 th share of Padmanabha Rao for the first time. Pertinently, there is no mention as to how Krishnappa got the suit property to term the suit property as the joint family property. 32. Plaint averments itself would go to show that there were sufficient alienations made during the lifetime of Padmanabha Rao himself. Thereafter also few items of the family were sold. 33. Plaintiffs did not object for those transactions and it is only in respect of one item of the property viz., immovable house property situated in Rashtrapathy Road, Nanjangudu (suit property), suit came to be filed. 34. Specific defence that has been taken by the defendant No.6 who is none other than the brother of the plaintiffs is that there was a settlement between Padmanabha Rao and Defendants Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the suit property on 12.10.1988. 35. 34. Specific defence that has been taken by the defendant No.6 who is none other than the brother of the plaintiffs is that there was a settlement between Padmanabha Rao and Defendants Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the suit property on 12.10.1988. 35. Smt.Venkatalakshamma and Smt.Indira were excluded the share in the said property and they did not choose to challenge the said settlement. 36. Therefore on 12.10.1988 the cause arose as to what would be the share of K.Padmanabha Rao. In other words, by inheritance Padmanabha Rao would have got 1/6 th share. But in view of the settlement, he got 1/4 th share excluding Smt.Venkatalakshamma and Smt. Indira as one of the sons namely Narayana Rao had been given in adoption. 1/4 th share of K.Padmanabha Rao was alienated by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.8 for which defendant No.6 is a signatory. 37. Ex.P-5 is the copy of the sale deed. In the said sale deed itself there has been specific mention that there was a relinquishment of right of Padmanabha Rao and Nagendra (defendant No.6) in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 by virtue of the settlement that occurred on 12.10.2008 marked at Ex.D1. 38. In other words, Padmanabha Rao did not retain any right, title or interest in respect of the suit property in view of settlement that has been arrived among Padmanabha Rao and defendant Nos.1 to 3. 39. Therefore, alienation made by defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the 8 th defendant cannot be faulted with. 40. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that as on the year 1988 itself, along with Padmanabha Rao and his son Nagendra-6 th defendant, plaintiffs also possessed the right in respect of the suit property, being the daughters of Padmanabha Rao. 41. The cause of action paragraph in the plaint reads as under: “The cause of action arose on for the suit 10.07.2000, when the defendants 1 to 5 refused to partition the schedule properties fallen into the share of the deceased Sri. K.A. Ananthapadmanabha Rao and also when the plaintiff learnt that the defendants are negotiating to sell the suit schedule properties to the intending purchasers and also on all other subsequent dates. The subject matter and value of the suit are well within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.” 42. K.A. Ananthapadmanabha Rao and also when the plaintiff learnt that the defendants are negotiating to sell the suit schedule properties to the intending purchasers and also on all other subsequent dates. The subject matter and value of the suit are well within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.” 42. In order to substantiate the same, there is no material evidence on record except saying that plaintiffs are the daughters of Padmanabha Rao. 43. Merely on the ground that the plaintiffs are the daughters of Padmanabha Rao ipso facto would not grant any right, title or interest in favour of the plaintiffs especially in the settlement that has taken place during the lifetime of Padmanabha Rao. 44. Pertinent to note that in the entire plaint, there is no attack to the family partition that has taken place on 12.10.1988 during the lifetime of Padmanabha Rao. 45. Even in the affidavit filed in lieu of the examination-in- chief of first plaintiff, there is no whisper as to the validity or otherwise of the family settlement marked at Ex.D-1. 46. When such is the glaring factual aspect of the matter, based on the oral testimony of P.W-1 to P.W-3 coupled with documents namely genealogical tree, copy of the sale deed and photographs, no right, title or interest are made out in respect of the suit property by the plaintiffs. 47. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that even after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, plaintiffs have failed to make out their right in respect of the suit property, being the daughters of Padmanabha Rao. 48. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in the negative. Consequently point No.2 would not arise for consideration by sheer logic and point No.3 needs to be answered in the negative. 49. REGARDING POINT NO.4: In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and thereby dismissed No order as to costs.