JUDGMENT : K. SUJANA, J. 1. This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2004 in O.S.No.22 of 2002 on the file of District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 11 in the suit. The parties herein are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the younger brother of defendant Nos.4 to 6 and the younger brother of the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3, namely late Dayakar Reddy. Defendant No.7 is the younger sister of plaintiff, while defendant No.6 is his elder sister. Dayakar Reddy passed away in 1994, leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 3 as his sons and defendant No.11 as his wife. The plaintiff's father, Ranga Reddy, passed away in 1973, and their mother, Devakamma, passed away in 1996, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 to 7 as her legal heirs. 3. The suit lands are joint family properties that need to be partitioned by metes and bounds. The joint family consists of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7. The family owns extensive agricultural lands and a residential house. In 1975, the Andhra Pradesh Land Ceiling Act (for short the Act’) came into existence, and the plaintiff and his brothers filed declarations under the Act. The Land Reforms Tribunal treated all agricultural lands as Hindu Undivided Joint Family properties and computed the shares accordingly. 4. The plaintiff requested defendant Nos.1 to 5 to partition the joint family properties on 08.06.2001, but they refused. The plaintiff also sought help from common friends and relatives to prevail upon the defendants to partition the properties. However, the defendants remain adamant and refused to partition. As a result, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 11 filed a written statement denying the existence of a joint family between the plaintiff and themselves. They claimed that the plaintiff's allegations of joint possession of the suit lands were false and invented for the purpose of suit. According to the defendants, Dayakar Reddy, the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3, passed away in 1994, and his name was replaced by his sons in the revenue records. The defendants stated that their ancestor, Venkat Reddy, died in 1947, leaving behind three sons namely Narsimha Reddy, Ram Reddy and Ranga Reddy who succeeded his properties. According to the defendants, Dayakar Reddy, the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3, passed away in 1994, and his name was replaced by his sons in the revenue records. The defendants stated that their ancestor, Venkat Reddy, died in 1947, leaving behind three sons namely Narsimha Reddy, Ram Reddy and Ranga Reddy who succeeded his properties. They claimed that defendant Nos.1 to 3 sold some of the lands to defendant Nos.8 to10 under a registered sale deed in September 1999 and put them in possession. The defendant Nos.8 to10 are alleged to be bona fide purchasers who have installed a bore well in the land. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 further claimed that there was an oral partition among the brothers during 1968, which was acted upon by them. As per the alleged partition, specific lands fell to the share of Dayakar Reddy, who was in exclusive possession of those lands. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 provided details of the lands that allegedly fell to the share of each brother, including Dayakar Reddy, Prabhakar Reddy (the plaintiff), Karunakar Reddy, and Sudhakar Reddy. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 claim that after the partition, each party is in exclusive possession of the lands that fell to their respective shares. The revenue records were mutated accordingly. They state that a house bearing No.5-1-166 at Jambagh, Hyderabad, was purchased out of joint family nucleus, and plaintiff took the share of wet land, which is more fertile and costly. 6. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 further claimed that in the declarations made under the Act, each party showed the lands that fell to their respective shares, and the Land Reforms Tribunal accepted the same. As such, neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants can now claim joint family status and joint possession of the lands. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 also point out that the plaintiff sold some of his lands allotted to his share and received the sale consideration. They stated that if the lands were joint family properties, the plaintiff ought to have known the boundaries and given them in the plaint. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 further stated that that the house bearing No.3-70 fell to the share of defendant No.5, was sold by him and his daughter on 06.09.1995 through a registered sale deed in favour of Mohd. Rafi and Vishwanatham and the same is within the knowledge of plaintiff. 7. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 further stated that that the house bearing No.3-70 fell to the share of defendant No.5, was sold by him and his daughter on 06.09.1995 through a registered sale deed in favour of Mohd. Rafi and Vishwanatham and the same is within the knowledge of plaintiff. 7. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 further claim that after the oral partition, Dayakar Reddy installed a bore well in Sy.Nos.11, 258, and 8 and took a service connection from the Electricity Department in his name, which was not objected to by the plaintiff or other defendants. Similarly, the plaintiff installed a bore well in his land in Sy.No.7 and took service connection, which establishes that there is an oral partition and that the suit lands are not in joint possession of the parties. 8. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 filed their written statement stating that the suit properties are joint family properties and they are sailing with the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.6 and 7 filed a separate written statement, contending that all the suit schedule lands are joint family properties in which the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are entitled to their respective shares. They claimed that there was no partition of the suit lands and that some lands are being cultivated by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.6 and 7 for convenience without any partition. 9. Defendant Nos.8 to 10 filed a separate written statement, stating that no joint family is subsisting between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7. They claimed that plaintiff concocted the story of a joint family with an ulterior motive to knock away some of the suit lands purchased by defendant Nos.8 to 10. They stated that Dayakar Reddy died in 1994, and the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and his wife defendant No.11 were recorded in the revenue records in respect of the lands after due inquiry. 10. Defendant Nos.8 to 10 claimed that they purchased specific lands from defendant Nos.1 to 3 through registered sale deeds and they are in exclusive possession of the purchased lands. They stated that the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a declaration stating that the properties standing in his name are exclusive properties that fell to his share in the oral partition. They stated that the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed a declaration stating that the properties standing in his name are exclusive properties that fell to his share in the oral partition. The plaintiff sold some of the lands that fell to his share, and there is no joint family subsisting between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7. 11. Defendant Nos.8 to 10 further claimed that they are bona fide purchasers who developed the lands and are in exclusive possession of the purchased lands. In the event of the court concluding that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, defendant Nos.8 to 10 requested that the properties purchased by them be allotted to the share of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and their mother defendant No.11 to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 12. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed three issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.A.1 was filed. On behalf of defendants Dws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.33 were marked. After hearing all the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit declaring that plaintiff is entitled to 7/13 th share in the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 3 and 11. 13. Heard Sri M.Narender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri M. Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 9, 10 and 33, Sri Thota Gopinath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.12, 13 and 14, Sri V.Venkata Mayur, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 5, Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri P.Sudharkar, learned counsel appearing for Progressive Law firm for respondent No.11. 14. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants who are defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 11 in the suit is that the judgment of trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and against the probabilities of the case, as the properties were already partitioned among the joint family members and they were in possession and enjoyment of respective shares. The trial Court erroneously held that the suit schedule properties are joint family un-divided properties when the oral and documentary evidence on record establishes the fact of partition of properties among the family members. The trial Court erroneously held that the suit schedule properties are joint family un-divided properties when the oral and documentary evidence on record establishes the fact of partition of properties among the family members. The Court below erred in placing reliance on Pws.1 to 3 and Dws.1 and 2 when the documents exhibited in the suit establishes the partition effected between the joint family members. The Court below ought to have seen that the ceiling declaration given by the members of joint family itself clearly establishes partition of joint family properties. The pleadings of the plaintiff itself shows that the wet lands are cultivated by the joint family members separately and they are in enjoyment of the same separately itself establishes the oral partition as pleaded by defendant Nos.1 to 3 during the year 1968. He further contended that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands in seeking the relief of partition. The plaintiff himself was the beneficiary under the earlier oral partition and now after deriving benefits out of the said properties, he is pleading that there was no earlier partition and is trying to take advantage of certain records to deprive defendant Nos.1 to 3. He further contended that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is illegal and unjust and therefore, prayed this Court to set aside the said impugned judgment. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that even though there was earlier partition between the parties basing on the oral partition, they submitted their declaration before the Land Revenue Tribunal which was not considered by the trial Court, further the property allotted to them orally was sold away by the parties initially by taking valid consideration which itself shows that there is earlier partition between the parties which was not considered by the trial Court. The evidence on record clearly shows that plaintiff and other defendants are allotted with specific properties and the plaintiff was allotted with more wet lands than the dry lands and enjoying the properties independently and the revenue entries itself shows that earlier partition was acted upon. Therefore, there is no question of joint family property and suit is filed only to cause loss to defendant Nos.1 to 3 and their purchasers. As such, requested the Court to set aside the judgment by dismissing this suit. 16. Therefore, there is no question of joint family property and suit is filed only to cause loss to defendant Nos.1 to 3 and their purchasers. As such, requested the Court to set aside the judgment by dismissing this suit. 16. The plaintiff in the suit and defendants 4 to 7 have filed cross objections challenging a part of the decree sofar as Sy.Nos.19, 23, 282, 308, 311 and 309 of Sikandlapur Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District stating that the court below ought to have seen that body of the plaint as well as in the written statement and in the evidence there was a reference about the above survey numbers. The court below ought to have decreed the suit in respect of the above survey numbers also and that in the partition suit the plaintiff or the defendants are in the same position and any of the party to the suit can plead about non-inclusion of some of properties in the schedule and the Court can take note of such submission on the basis of evidence and decree the suit or pass other order including all the properties, and the Court below ought to have included the same in the preliminary decree. As such, prayed this Court to include the said properties. 17. On the other hand, respondents 4 and 5 filed written arguments stating that they are the sisters of Late D.Dayakar Reddy who is the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Late D.Dayakar Reddy, Prabhakar Reddy, Sudhakar Reddy, and Karunakar Reddy along with respondents 4 and 5 are the children of late Ranga Reddy. Late Venkat Reddy is the common ancestor and original owner of the suit schedule properties, late Ranga Reddy is the son of late Venkat Reddy and father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and others have succeeded to the suit schedule properties. The land ceiling operation is affected in the year 1975 wherein they jointly surrendered lands to the Government which were subsequently allotted to various tenants under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act. The land ceiling operation is affected in the year 1975 wherein they jointly surrendered lands to the Government which were subsequently allotted to various tenants under Section 38E of the Tenancy Act. The sale proceeds of the house at Jambagh, Hyderabad and house at Marredpally are shared by all the parties which shows that the said houses were joint family properties and all the brothers excluding respondent Nos.4 and 5 have jointly sold the properties to S.S.A. Hatcheries and that the land to an extent of Ac.21.10 guntas in Sy.Nos.180, 181 and 182 and cattle shed at Gomaram village was also jointly sold by all the brothers excluding respondent Nos.4 and 5 and all of them shared the sale proceeds equally, that all the brothers have jointly sold the properties to one P.Ranga Reddy and sale proceeds were shared among themselves. Further the evidence of Pw.3 who is a common relative of the parties deposed that properties are in joint possession and Ex.B.2 which is the deposition in O.S.No.23 of 1976 of late D.Dayakar Reddy who is the father of defendants 1 to 3 shows that the lands are in family possession from the ancestors and all are in possession of the same. The land Ceiling Tribunal considered all the declared lands as joint family properties, and surrendered surplus lands to the Government which itself shows that the properties are joint family properties and the admission of late Dayakar Reddy itself shows that properties are in joint possession of family members and the memorandum of understanding dated 11.05.1973 does not speak about partition of properties, but mentioned about future partition. 18. Dw.3-Amarender Reddy was minor in the year 1968 and his deposition is irrelevant. Ex.B.1 demonstrates that property is in joint possession and hence the claim of partition in the year 1968 does not hold good. He relied on the judgment in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma , (2020) 9 SCC 1 and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act confers the status of coparcener on daughter born before or after amendment as the son with same rights and liabilities. Further in Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another Vs. He relied on the judgment in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma , (2020) 9 SCC 1 and Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act confers the status of coparcener on daughter born before or after amendment as the son with same rights and liabilities. Further in Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another Vs. Chakiri Yanadi and another , (2011) 9 SCC 788 , it was observed that the Court can modify preliminary decree or more than one preliminary decree to pass the final decree which includes the shares of daughter as per amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and prayed to dismiss this appeal. 19. The respondent Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 adopted the arguments of respondent Nos.9 and 10. The contention of respondent Nos.9 and 10 is that there was no prior partition in this case and the documents filed by the defendants itself shows that properties were sold by the members of joint family jointly and shared the sale proceeds. Further, though they filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal stating that there is an oral partition, the same was not accepted by the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Land Reforms Tribunal deleted the lands from the joint family properties and allotted to the tenants and 38E certificate was granted which itself shows that there is no oral partition and the evidence of father of defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.23 of 1976, itself shows that the suit lands are in joint family possession from the ancestors. Therefore, there is no question of prior partition in the present case and all the properties are joint family properties. Therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment of trial Court and no merits in the present appeal. 20. Considering the submissions made by the counsel and the material on record, now, the points to be determined are : 1. Whether the suit schedule properties were already partitioned orally or the same were joint family and un- divided properties ? 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties, if so, he is entitled for 7/13 th share in the suit schedule properties ? 3. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs any interference? POINT NO.1 : 21. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties, if so, he is entitled for 7/13 th share in the suit schedule properties ? 3. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs any interference? POINT NO.1 : 21. In the trial Court on behalf of plaintiff Pws.1 to 3 were examined, Ex.A.1 certified copy of Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 was filed and on behalf of defendants Dws.1 to 5 were examined. Dw.1 is defendant No.4, Dw.2 is co-brother of father of plaintiff, Dw.3 is defendant No.1, Dw.4 is common relative and Dw.5 is defendant No.8. 22. The contention of plaintiff in the suit is that he is the younger brother of defendant Nos.4 to 7 and late Dayakar Reddy is the father of defendants 1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.11 is the elder brother of plaintiff. Late Dayakar Reddy is the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3, Sudhakar Reddy, Dr.Karunakar Reddy and plaintiff are the sons and defendant Nos.6 and 7 are the daughters of late Ranga Reddy. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. The dispute is that the suit schedule properties were the properties left over by late Ranga Reddy. According to the plaintiff all the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties left over by his father late Ranga Reddy which are to be succeeded by all the co-parceners of joint family and all these properties originally stood in the name of their common ancestor Venkat Reddy-grandfather of plaintiff. There is no dispute with regard to Venkat Reddy who was the original owner of suit schedule properties. The dispute is that at the time of filing declaration before the Land Ceiling Tribunal, they filed declaration stating that the properties were orally partitioned and they are in possession of the same independently. According to defendant Nos.1 to 3, the statement was admitted by the Land Reforms Tribunal, whereas the contention of plaintiff is that it is not admitted by the Land Reforms Tribunal, the properties are deleted showing all the properties in possession of joint family. The appellants herein who are the defendants admitted that the lands were surrendered to the Government which was subsequently allotted to various beneficiaries under section 38E of the Tenancy Act. The appellants herein who are the defendants admitted that the lands were surrendered to the Government which was subsequently allotted to various beneficiaries under section 38E of the Tenancy Act. The defendants further admitted that they purchased residential house at Jambagh, Hyderabad, sold the same and the sale proceeds were shared by all the family members as it was their joint family property and the said house was purchased by selling the jewellery held by their mother i.e., wife of Ranga Reddy. When it is admitted that the house at Jambagh was joint family property purchased with the funds allotted to the joint family nucleus, it cannot be said that the property was allotted to plaintiff. Defendants also admitted that all the four brothers sold jointly part of their joint family lands to S.S.A. Hatcheries and sale proceeds were equally shared by them. Pw.2 who is a common relative of both the parties deposed that plaintiff is dull and not an intelligent person and after the death of father of plaintiff all the four brothers entered into a settlement, wrote a document and kept it with one Sadasiva Reddy who was the uncle of plaintiff. Some of the dry lands are joint family properties were sold jointly by all the four brothers of the plaintiff in the year 1954-55, the father of plaintiff got recorded the names of Dayakar Reddy and defendant Nos.4 and 5 in the revenue records in respect of the joint family lands with an understanding that all the four brothers of the plaintiff shall have equal shares and he deposed that the properties are joint family properties. 23. Pw.3 is the cousin of plaintiff and his brothers and he supported the plaintiff. Dw.1 is defendant No.4 and he deposed that the properties were already partitioned and all are having equal shares. He relied on Ex.B.1 registered sale deed dated 13.02.1989 showing that all the four brothers jointly sold Ac.11.34 guntas in Sy.No.143 and 165 of Sikandalapur village to one P.Ranga Reddy for a sale consideration of Rs.85,000/- and as per the recitals of Ex.B.1 the said land sold by them was joint family properties. Dw.1 also filed Ex.B.2 which is the certified copy of deposition in O.S.No.23 of 1976 of father of Dws.1 to 3, wherein he deposed that suit lands were their ancestral properties inherited by his father Ranga Reddy from his grandfather Venkat Reddy. Dw.1 also filed Ex.B.2 which is the certified copy of deposition in O.S.No.23 of 1976 of father of Dws.1 to 3, wherein he deposed that suit lands were their ancestral properties inherited by his father Ranga Reddy from his grandfather Venkat Reddy. He also deposed that he had three brothers and all are the joint owners of the suit schedule lands having inherited the same from his father Ranga Reddy and the same were shown in the holding of their mother as per the declaration filed before the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Land Reforms Tribunal considered all the declared lands as their joint family lands. Dayakar Reddy further deposed that even after surrender of surplus lands to the Land Reforms Tribunal, they have been in joint possession of all their family properties. The cattle shed and well situated in Sy.No.19 were jointly held by them. Dayakar Reddy also admitted that he is the Manager of joint family consisting of four brothers after the death of their father and their mother is also staying with the joint family, which shows that partition is only among the father of Dayakar Reddy and Ranga Reddy. 24. The evidence of late Dayakar Reddy in O.S.No.23 of 1976 clearly shows that there is no oral partition as claimed by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and the properties were joint family properties of late Ranga Reddy. Ex.B.1 also shows that there is no partition of joint family properties and they sold property jointly. 25. The contention of appellants herein is that the admission before Land Reforms Tribunal is not conclusive proof of oral partition. An admission is not a conclusive proof of evidence and it is always subject to explanation and it is always open to the parties to explain under what circumstances they made such an admission. Even the land Ceiling Tribunal inspite of such admission, not accepted the alleged oral partition and concluded as joint family properties in a single unit and allotted shares as per their entitlement. Though the appellants herein claimed that there was an oral partition in the year 1969 itself and basing on the oral partition, the parties have filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal, the evidence of father of Dws.1 to 3 in O.S.No.23 of 1976 shows that the properties are joint family properties. Though the appellants herein claimed that there was an oral partition in the year 1969 itself and basing on the oral partition, the parties have filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal, the evidence of father of Dws.1 to 3 in O.S.No.23 of 1976 shows that the properties are joint family properties. Therefore, the contention of appellants herein that there was an oral partition that took place in the year 1969 cannot be believed. Further the alleged oral partition was of the year 1969 according to the appellants, whereas the father of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 4 to 7- Ranga Reddy died in the year 1973 which means at the time of alleged oral partition, their father Ranga Reddy was alive, as such, he is also entitled for a share in the joint family properties. But the evidence shows that no share was allotted to Ranga Reddy. Therefore, the alleged oral partition cannot be believed. 26. The evidence of Dw.3 shows that the lands in Sy.Nos.165 and 143 were not jointly sold by the plaintiff, defendant Nos.4 and 5 and Dayakar Reddy and these lands in Sy.Nos.165 and 143 were sold under Ex.B.1-registered sale deed and its recitals clearly shows that lands are sold jointly and the document falsifies the evidence of Dw.3. Further the joint family of plaintiff and defendants owned about Ac.400 of land during the period of late Ranga Reddy, the father of plaintiff, defendants 4 to 7 and grandfather of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Defendant No.4 filed writ petition challenging the order of Government declaring that patta of the lands in Sy.Nos.6/AA/2 and 7/AA2 along with other lands were declared wrongly as Khariz Khata lands and defendant No.4 in his evidence clearly stated that since lands in respect of all these lands were transferred in his name, when he was a minor during 1954-55 at the time of Khasra Pahani, he filed writ petition claiming these lands as belonging to him since they are recorded in his name, but he claimed all these lands as joint family properties. 27. The evidence of Dw.4 is also not corroborating with the contention of defendant Nos.1 to 3 to establish oral partition. 27. The evidence of Dw.4 is also not corroborating with the contention of defendant Nos.1 to 3 to establish oral partition. Dw.4 stated that there was no joint family and there was partition between the brothers, but in his cross-examination, he did not give any particulars about the partition and he admitted that surrender statements were published in the village. Exs.B.5 and B.6 are the notices published by the Land Reforms Tribunal indicating that lands surrendered and accepted by the Tribunal and compensation was also paid for the surrendered lands and it was shared by all the four brothers which indicates that there was no partition of the joint family properties. The document under Ex.B.1-sale deed and Ex.B.2 evidence of Dayakar Reddy in O.S.No.23 of 1976 clearly shows that properties were joint family properties and there is no partition. 28. The main contention of the appellants is that when the parties admittedly filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal stating that there was an oral partition and they are in possession of certain properties after the partition, now they cannot claim that these properties are joint family properties, as an admission act as an estoppel in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kale & others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & others, 1976 (3) SCC 119 the parties once admitted before any Tribunal, they cannot go back from the said admission. In the present case also all the parties filed declaration stating that there is an oral partition between the parties, whereas, the subsequent events in this case shows that the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.23 of 1976 deposed that it is a joint family property and Ex.B.1 sale deed even after oral partition shows that the property was sold jointly and sale proceeds were partitioned among the parties. Therefore, the said admission cannot be considered as an estoppel in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case. As such, there is no illegality in the finding of trial Court with regard to nature of property as it is a joint family property. POINT NOs.2 AND 3 : 29. All the suit schedule properties are admittedly ancestral properties and it is not the claim of any party to the suit that either entirely or any part of the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of any of the parties. POINT NOs.2 AND 3 : 29. All the suit schedule properties are admittedly ancestral properties and it is not the claim of any party to the suit that either entirely or any part of the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of any of the parties. The contention of defendant Nos.4 and 5 who are the sisters of plaintiff is that in view of amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short ‘Act’) in the year 2005 they are also entitled for equal share in the suit properties as per Ganduri Koteshwaramma’s case, the Court can modify the preliminary decree or more than one preliminary decree to pass the final decree, which includes the shares of daughter as per amended Act. Further, in Vineeta Sharma’s case, the provisions of Section 6 of the Act confer the status of co-parcener on daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. Going through the said contention, there is no ambiguity with regard to applicability of amended Section 6 of the Act to the daughters born prior to the amendment, whereas in the present case succession opens when father of the brothers and sisters died in the year 1973 itself, on that date these daughters are not co-parceners. Therefore, amended provision cannot be implemented from 1973, as such, they are entitled for share in their father’s property as class-I legal heirs. 30. The suit schedule properties are inherited by late Ranga Reddy from his father late Venkat Reddy, thus, all the four brothers i.e., Dayakar Reddy, Sudhakar Reddy, Karunakar Reddy and Prabhakar Reddy and their father late Ranga Reddy are entitled to equal shares in the suit schedule properties. Initially the suit schedule properties are to be divided into five equal shares and each of late Ranga Reddy, late Dayakar Reddy, Sudhakar Reddy, Karunakar Reddy and Prabhakar Reddy are entitled to 1/5th share in the entire suit schedule property and the 1/5th share of late Ranga Reddy is to be equally shared between defendants 1 to 3, and 11 and defendant Nos.6 and 7 are also entitled to equal shares along with their brothers and the four sons of Ranga Reddy and two daughters are entitled to share his 1/5th interest in the suit schedule properties as Devakamma is no more. Thus, Dayakar Reddy, defendants 4 to 7 and the plaintiff are entitled to each 1/6th share in the 1/5th share of late Ranga Reddy. Therefore, there is no illegality in the shares allotted by the trial Court. In the cross-objections filed by respondents 1 to 5 it is stated that though they mentioned about Sy.Nos.19, 23, 282, 308, 311 and 309, the trial Court has not decreed the suit with regard to the above survey numbers and the same should have been included in all the schedules as well as in the judgment and decree as those properties are also ancestral and joint family properties. Only Sy.Nos.19 and 23 are mentioned in the plaint schedule properties and there is no evidence or no mention about Sy.Nos.282, 308, 311 and 309 either by the plaintiff or the defendants. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to include the properties in Sy.Nos.19 and 23 to an extent of Ac.4.34 guntas and Ac.4.24 guntas. These cross-objections are considered to the extent of the above said properties as for the other survey numbers there is no pleading or there is no evidence. As such the claim to the extent of Sy.Nos.282, 308, 311 and 309 is dismissed. Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly. 31. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal Suit is dismissed and the cross objections is partly allowed to the extent of Sy.Nos.19 and 23. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.