JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. RSA No.1272 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 passed in R.A. No.278 of 2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal. 2. RSA No.1271 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 passed in R.A. No.91 of 2010 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, allowing the appeal, and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2010 passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and respondents were the defendants. 4. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows. 5. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 9 constituted a Hindu undivided joint family. Defendant No.1 is managing the joint family properties. Defendant No.1 being the father and elder member of the family, the suit schedule properties are cultivated by defendant No.1 on behalf of the joint family. The occupancy rights regarding the suit schedule properties was conferred by the Land Tribunal in favour of defendant No.1. The suit schedule properties were granted in favour of defendant No.1 to enure to the benefit of the whole family. The plaintiff and defendants are in the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is contented that there is a Panchayat partition deed executed on 24.05.1982 in between defendants Nos.1 to 4. At that time, the plaintiff was a minor. 6. Defendant No.2 filed a suit in O.S. No.115 of 1988 for a partition and separate possession against defendant No.1 and others, which ended in a compromise. 7. Later on, defendant No.1 filed another suit in O.S. No.789 of 1992 against defendant No.2 and others. All the defendants have, by colluding with each other, partitioned the joint family properties by ignoring the rights of the plaintiff. 8. 7. Later on, defendant No.1 filed another suit in O.S. No.789 of 1992 against defendant No.2 and others. All the defendants have, by colluding with each other, partitioned the joint family properties by ignoring the rights of the plaintiff. 8. It is contented that as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the plaintiff is a coparcener and she is entitled to her 1/5 th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties, however the defendants refused to effect a partition. It is also contended that the defendant No.1 was completely bed-ridden, and suffered paralysis. 9. It is contended that, the sale deed dated 12.05.2004 alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 is not binding on the plaintiff's share. It is also contended that defendant No.3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.10 regarding the lands bearing Survey Nos.59 and 60 of Arehalli Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk denying the pendency of the suit for partition and separate possession. 10. It is contended that defendant No.10 is not a bona fide purchaser, and he was aware about the pendency of the suit. Hence, prays to decree the suit. 11. Defendant No.1(a) filed a written statement admitting the contents of the plaint, and accordingly prays to decree the suit as prayed for. 12. Defendant Nos.2 and 5 filed an independent written statements. 13. Defendant No.2 in his written statement denied the averments made in the plaint, and contended that a partition was effected between defendant Nos.1 to 4 and got divided the properties under the Panchayat Partition deed dated 24.05.1982. It is contended that the partition was effected in the presence of panchayatdars, and the same was reduced into writing as unregistered partition deed on 24.05.1982. Thus, it is contended that there is no joint family in existence as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and it is contended that the plaintiff has no right to claim a share in the suit schedule properties. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not included all the properties. Hence the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. 14. It is contended that at the instance of defendant Nos.1 and 5, the instant suit came to be filed. It is also contended that the plaintiff has not included all the properties. Hence the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. 14. It is contended that at the instance of defendant Nos.1 and 5, the instant suit came to be filed. It is contended that a partition suit was filed in O.S. No.115 of 1988 against defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4; the said suit ended in a compromise confirming the rights of defendant Nos.1 to 4 as per the partition deed. In the partition deed, the house property bearing Kaneshumari No.86/1 was allotted in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and at the time of compromise entered between the defendants, the house property was allotted in favour of defendant No.1 and the agricultural land bearing Sy.Nos.57/1, 59/1A, 58/2A, of Arehalli village fell to the share of defendant No.1 with a limited right that defendant No.1 shall enjoy the property till his death, and thereafter, it shall be divided among all the three sons i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 4. 15. It is contended that defendant No.1 sold the house property bearing Kaneshumari No.86/1 of Attibele village, which was allotted to him under the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.115 of 1988 under the registered sale deed dated 01.08.1988 and defendant No.1 retained Survey No.55/2 together with a stone riveted wall. 16. As of the date of filing the suit, there was no joint family status among the plaintiff and defendants, and hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.2. 17. Defendant No.5 in her written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and contented that she became the absolute owner of the property shown in the sale deed dated 12.05.2004 and is in peaceful, lawful and physical possession and enjoyment of the same, as the absolute owner and that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 is within the knowledge of the plaintiff, and she also reiterated the written statement averments of defendant No.2, and accordingly prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.5. 18. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant and they are cultivating and enjoying suit schedule land jointly? 2. 18. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant and they are cultivating and enjoying suit schedule land jointly? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has got 1/5 th share in the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the defendant Nos.2 to 4 proves that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and suit for partial partition is not maintainable as contended in the written statement ? 4. Whether the defendant Nos.2 to 4 proves that plaintiff has not valued suit properly and Court fee paid is insufficient? 5. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/5 th share by metes and bounds as prayed in the plaint? 6. What order or decree?" 19. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and marked 39 documents as Exhibits P-1 to 39. 20. In rebuttal, the legal representative of defendant No1 i.e., defendant No.1(a) was examined as DW1; Defendant No.5 was examined as DW2; Defendant No.6 examined one witness as DW3 and marked 13 documents as Exhibits D1 to D13. 21. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the affirmative; issue Nos.3 and 4 in the negative and issue No.6 as per the final order. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 27.01.2010 and it was declared that the plaintiff is entitled for a partition and separate possession of her 1/5 th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. It was also declared that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 under a registered sale deed dated 12.05.2004 is not binding on the plaintiff. It was also declared that the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.10 regarding Survey Nos.59 and 60, measuring 01 acre 23 guntas and 17 guntas respectively, is not binding on the plaintiff. 22. Defendant No.5, aggrieved by the judgment, and preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.91 of 2010. 23. 22. Defendant No.5, aggrieved by the judgment, and preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.91 of 2010. 23. The legal representative of defendant No.2 i.e., defendant No.2(a) and defendant No.3 aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 preferred appeal in R.A. No.278 of 2010. 24. The First Appellate Court clubbed both the appeals, and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties framed the following common points for consideration: "1. Whether the appellants in both appeals prove that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse, arbitrary and this Court interference is necessary? 2. What order?" 25. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 as per the final order. Consequently, the First Appellate Court allowed both the appeals vide common judgment dated 15.04.2013; The judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.242 of 2006 dated 27.01.2010 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and JMFC, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore was set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. 26. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the common judgment passed in R.A. Nos.91 of 2010 and 278 of 2010, preferred these Regular Second Appeals. 27. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and the learned counsel for defendant No.5. 28. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the occupancy rights regarding the suit schedule properties were conferred on defendant No.1 for the benefit of the entire family and the plaintiff being a daughter of defendant No.1 is entitled to a share in the suit schedule properties. 29. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit schedule properties for and on behalf of the entire family and he has filed Form No.VII on behalf of the entire family and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1, as he being the elder member of the family. 30. He submits that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and no partition is effected. The said aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court and committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 30. He submits that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and no partition is effected. The said aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court and committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. He also submits that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was just and proper. The Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeals. 31. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant No.5 submits that there was a prior partition among defendant Nos.1 to 4, and in the said partition, the suit schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No.1 and the partition was reduced into writing styled as Panchayat Palupatti dated 24.05.1982. 32. Subsequently, after effecting the partition, again disputes arose among defendant Nos.1 to 4. 33. Hence, a suit came to be filed in O.S. No.115 of 1988 and the said suit ended in a compromise, wherein defendant Nos.2 to 4 have admitted and confirmed the partition effected in 1982 and that the suit schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No.1. 34. He submits that defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 for valuable consideration and defendant No.3 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.10. 35. Defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties as of the date of execution of the registered sale deed. He submits that the partition was effected in 1982. As of the date of effecting the partition, the daughters were not treated as coparceners. 36. He submits that the daughters were treated as coparceners in view of the amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 [often referred to as the 1994 amendment because it came into effect in 1994]. 37. He also submits that the Central Government has amended the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with effect from 09.09.2005, and the daughters are treated as coparceners. 38. He submits that according to the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any disposition or alienation, including any partition or testamentary disposition, of property which had taken place before 20.12.2004 are saved. 39. 38. He submits that according to the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any disposition or alienation, including any partition or testamentary disposition, of property which had taken place before 20.12.2004 are saved. 39. He submits that the said aspect was not properly considered by the Trial Court, and committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. 40. He submits that the First Appellate Court has rightly considered that there was a prior partition in 1982 among defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the same was confirmed in the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.115 of 1988, and, defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by the Panchayat palupatti and the compromise decree passed in O.S. No.115 of 1988. He submits that defendant No.1 sold the property for a legal necessity. 41. Therefore, he submits that the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is just and proper, and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds prays to dismiss the appeals. 42. This Court, vide order dated 19.06.2018 framed the following common substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in ignoring the fact that the sale deed was got executed by respondent No.5 herein from the kartha of the family, during the pendency of the suit, which is a invalid, nominal sale deed? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in concluding that the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act is applicable when the appellant was not married as on the date of the amended Act and if any partition had taken place prior to the said Act in respect to the tenanted lands, the same is not binding on them? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in ignoring the fact that the compromise decree entered in the earlier suit without the presence of the daughters is not binding on them and said decree is nullity in the eye of law? 4. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in coming to a conclusion that the grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in favour of the Kartha of the family would enure to the benefit of the joint family members?" Reg. Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 to 4 43. 4. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has erred in coming to a conclusion that the grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal in favour of the Kartha of the family would enure to the benefit of the joint family members?" Reg. Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 to 4 43. All the substantial questions of law are interlinked together and hence, they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid repetition of facts. 44. The plaintiff to substantiate her case examined herself as PW1. She deposed that defendant No.1 is the father and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the brothers of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 was cultivating the suit schedule properties for, and on behalf of the entire family and he has filed an application before the Land Tribunal for the grant of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1 to the enure to the joint family. 45. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. They are the members of the Hindu joint undivided family and no partition is effected among the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession, however, the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. 46. They are the members of the Hindu joint undivided family and no partition is effected among the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff demanded a partition and separate possession, however, the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. 46. The plaintiff, to prove her case, has produced the documents: • Exhibit P1 is the genealogical tree, which discloses that defendant No.1 is the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4; • Exhibit P2 is the order passed by the Land Tribunal wherein the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the suit schedule properties; • Exhibit P3 is a certified copy of the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of his legal heirs i.e., the plaintiff and defendant Nos.5, 6, 7 and 9 regarding the portion of the suit schedule properties; • Exhibit P4 is a certified copy of the extract of Mutation Register-4 of 1990-91, which discloses that based on Exhibit P3, name of plaintiff and defendant Nos.5, 6, 7 and 9 were mutated in the revenue records; • Exhibits P5 to P16 are the RTC extracts, which discloses that defendants are the owners of the suit schedule properties (except Exhibit P-11, where the plaintiff's name also appear in respect of Sy.No.55/2); • Exhibits P17 to P19 are the certified copies of the extract of Mutation Register; • Exhibits P20 to P25 are the Nil Encumbrance Certificates which disclose that there was no encumbrance on the suit schedule properties; • Exhibits P26 to P28 are the certified copies of the plaint, compromise petition and decree passed in O.S. No.115 of 1988, wherein defendant No.2 filed a suit against defendant Nos.3 and 4, defendant Nos.1 and 1(a) for partition and separate possession regarding of suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the parties filed a compromise petition and the said suit ended in a compromise; • Exhibits P29 to P30 are the certified copies of the plaint, and written statement in O.S. No.789 of 1992, wherein defendant No.1, filed a suit for declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties i.e., Survey No.57/1 measuring 18 guntas situated at Arehalli Village; • Ex.P31 is the joint memo filed in O.S.No.789/1992 and Ex.P32 is a certified copy of a decree passed in O.S.No.789/1992; • Exhibit P33 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 01.04.2005 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.10 regarding the lands bearing Sy.Nos.59 and 60; • Exhibit P34 is a certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 12.05.2004, which would disclose that defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 in regarding the lands bearing Sy.Nos.57/1, 58/1A, 58/2A; • Exhibit P35 is the wedding invitation card; • Exhibit P36 is the invitation to death ceremony of Muniyappa. • Exhibit P37 is the certificate issued by the doctor who treated defendant No.1; • Exhibit P38 is a certified copy of the vakalat filed in O.S. No.41 of 1996 and the signature of Ratnamma was marked as Exhibit P38(a); • Exhibit P39 is a certified copy of the written statement filed in O.S. No.41 of 1995, wherein Kumari Sugana filed a suit against A.P.Munlakappa and others. 47. During the cross-examination, PW1 has clearly admitted that there was a partition among defendant Nos.1 to 4 and in the said partition, the properties were divided among defendants Nos.1 to 4; Subsequently, defendant No.2 filed a suit against the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 1(a) 2 and 3 for partition and separate possession. The said suit ended in a compromise and the partition effected in 1982 was confirmed. 48. The plaintiff also examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3, who have deposed that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the members of a Hindu undivided family, and no partition is effected among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4, and it is deposed that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 49. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the members of a Hindu undivided family, and no partition is effected among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4, and it is deposed that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 49. In rebuttal, defendant No.1(a) was examined as DW1. She has supported the case of the plaintiff and deposed that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and no partition is effected. Hence, prays to decree the suit of the plaintiff. 50. Defendant No.5 was examined as DW2. She has deposed that the suit schedule properties were owned and possessed by defendant No.1, the properties were cultivated by defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 submitted an application for grant of occupancy rights in his individual capacity and deposed that the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1. 51. Subsequently, she deposed that a partition was effected among defendant Nos.1 to 4 by way of Panchayat Palupatti dated 24.05.1982. In the said partition, the suit schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No.1 and he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. 52. Subsequently, differences arose among the defendants and hence, defendant No.2 filed a suit in O.S. No.115 of 1988 seeking a partition and separate possession against defendant Nos.1, 1(a), 3 and 4; The said suit ended up in a compromise and in the said compromise decree, the suit schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 sold the lands bearing Survey Nos.57/1, 58/1A, 58/2A and 104 and based on the sale deed, defendant No.5 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. She also deposed that as of the date of filing the suit, the plaintiff and defendants were not the members of the joint family and there existed no joint family status, as such, there was a severance of status. 53. To prove the defence, the defendants marked the documents: • Exhibit D1 is the affidavit of PW1. • Exhibit D2 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.05.2004 (Exhibit P34); • Exhibit D3 is an unregistered partition deed effected amongst defendant Nos.1 to 4, which discloses that a partition was effected amongst the defendants. 53. To prove the defence, the defendants marked the documents: • Exhibit D1 is the affidavit of PW1. • Exhibit D2 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.05.2004 (Exhibit P34); • Exhibit D3 is an unregistered partition deed effected amongst defendant Nos.1 to 4, which discloses that a partition was effected amongst the defendants. In the said partition, the suit schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of this unregistered partition deed; • Exhibit D4 is a certified copy of the gift deed, wherein defendant No.1 gifted the land bearing Sy.No.55/2 in favour of his daughters. • Exhibit D5 is a certified copy of the compromise petition in O.S. No.155 of 1988 (Exhibit P-27); • Exhibit D6 is a certified copy of the decree passed in O.S. No.789 of 1992, which discloses that defendant No.1 filed a suit for a declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties; • Exhibits D7 to D12 are the certified copies of two mutations and four RTC extracts, which disclose that defendant No.5 is the owner and in possession of the property purchased under Exhibit D2 (Exhibit P34); • Exhibit D13 is a certified copy of the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.10 (Exhibit P33); 54. Defendant No.5 examined one R.Narayanaswamy as DW3, who is said to be the scribe to the registered sale deed dated 12.05.2004, whereby defendant No.1 approached defendant No.5 offering to sell the lands bearing Sy.Nos.57/1, 58/1A, 58/2A and 104; and the plaintiff and other defendants also approached him and gave him instructions to prepare the sale deed dated 12.05.2004 as per Exhibit P34 (Exhibit D2); He prepared the sale deed based upon the instructions of defendants Nos.1 to 4; Defendant No.1 has affixed his Left Thumb Impression on the sale deed as a vendor and defendant No.5 signed as a purchaser and the plaintiff, defendant No.6 also signed as witnesses. Similarly, the wife of Muniyappa also affixed her Left Thumb Impression to the sale deed. 55. From a perusal of the evidence of DW2 and DW3, it is evident that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses to disprove the evidence. 56. Similarly, the wife of Muniyappa also affixed her Left Thumb Impression to the sale deed. 55. From a perusal of the evidence of DW2 and DW3, it is evident that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of these witnesses to disprove the evidence. 56. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is an undisputed fact that defendant No.1 submitted an application to the Land Tribunal for the grant of occupancy rights; and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule properties. 57. From the perusal of the Order of Land Tribunal, it is clear that the suit schedule properties were granted in favour of defendant No.1 in his individual capacity and there is no finding recorded by the Tribunal that the lands were granted in favour of defendant No.1 for the benefit of the entire family. 58. Although, the suit schedule properties were put in a hotchpotch and a partition was effected among defendant Nos.1 to 4 on 24.05.1982 and the said partition was reduced into writing under the name and style as "Panchayat Palupatti" dated 24.05.1982, after the execution of said palupatti, differences arose among the defendants. Therefore, defendant No.2 filed a suit in O.S. No.115 of 1988 for partition and separate possession against defendant Nos.1, 1(a), 3 and 4. The said suit ended in a compromise and a compromise petition was filed as per Exhibit P27, which discloses that the suit schedule properties i.e., lands bearing Sy.Nos.55/2, 57/1, 58/1A, 58/2A, 104, 273/1 and also a house bearing kaneshumari No.86/1 fell to the share of defendant No.1. By virtue of a compromise decree passed in O.S. No.115 of 1988, defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. 59. Defendant No.1 also filed a suit in O.S. No.789 of 1992 against defendant Nos.1(a), 2 and 3 seeking a declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the land bearing Survey No.57/1. It is contended that the suit schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No.1 in the compromise decree in O.S. No.115 of 1988 vide compromise decree dated 13.07.1988. 60. It is contended that the suit schedule properties fell to the share of defendant No.1 in the compromise decree in O.S. No.115 of 1988 vide compromise decree dated 13.07.1988. 60. The defendants in the said suit filed a written statement admitting the partition effected on 24.05.1982 and also compromise decree passed in O.S. No.115 of 1988 and admitted that Survey No.57/1 was allotted to the share of defendant No.1. The said suit was decreed vide decree dated, as per Exhibit P-32. 61. Admittedly, the partition was effected among defendant Nos.1 to 4 in 1982. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was amended by Karnataka State in 1990 (came into effect in 1994), by which the daughters were treated as coparceners. Before coming into force of Karnataka Amendment Act, the daughters were not treated as a coparceners. 62. The Central Government amended the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in 2005. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, nothing contained in subsection (1) shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of properties, which had taken place before 20.12.2004. 63. Admittedly, a partition was effected on 24.05.1982. On the date of effecting the partition, the daughters were not treated as coparceners; even as on the date of passing of compromise decree in O.S. No.115 of 1988, which was disposed on 13.07.1988, the daughters were not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. 64. The plaintiff also admitted in her cross-examination that there was a prior partition among the defendants on 24.05.1982 and the same was confirmed in O.S. No.115 of 1988. As of the date of filing of the suit, there was no joint family in existence and there was a severance of status. In view of the admission of PW-1 that there was a prior partition among defendant Nos.1 to 4, now, the plaintiff cannot claim a share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 having executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 regarding the lands bearing Survey Nos.57/1, 58/1A, 58/2A and 104, to which the plaintiff and others were also signatories, attested the registered sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.5. Defendant No.1 having executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 regarding the lands bearing Survey Nos.57/1, 58/1A, 58/2A and 104, to which the plaintiff and others were also signatories, attested the registered sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.5. The plaintiff was well aware about the execution of a registered sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5, the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5. 65. Defendant No.1 also executed a registered Gift deed in favour of all six daughters, and all six daughters have accepted the gift and acted upon the registered gift deed. 66. From the perusal of the recital of the gift deed, it discloses that defendant No.1, is an absolute owner, of the properties gifted in favour of all the daughters. Therefore, the plaintiff, now, cannot contend that the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the granted lands as well. Admittedly, the granted lands were also partitioned among defendant Nos.1 to 4. 67. The First Appellate Court considering the entire evidence on record has rightly held that there was a prior partition among defendant Nos.1 to 4, and parties have acted upon the partition and there was a severance of status, and the suit schedule properties were not amenable for a partition, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. 68. The Trial Court has considered all the aspects including the enactment of Section 6 to the Hindu Succession Act by way of Karnataka Amendment and also the Central Amendment, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment. 69. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and substantial question of law no.4 in the negative. 70. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER: (i) The appeals are dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 passed in R.A. Nos.91 of 2010 and 278 of 2010 by the learned Additional District and sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bangalore is hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to the costs. (iv) Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.