Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 966 (TS)

NARENDER SINGH THAKUR DIED v. Usha Rani Thakur

2025-09-03

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This is an appeal filed by the appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 06.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.561 of 2009 by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The appellants herein are the defendant Nos.4, 5 and 8 to 11, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the defendant Nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7 before the trial Court. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The facts of the case before the trial Court are that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 are the daughters, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sons and defendant No.7 is the wife of one late Karan Singh Thakur and that during his life time Karan Singh Thakur has purchased the suit schedule house bearing No.9-8-47 admeasuring 637 Sq.yards, situated at Fateh Darwaza, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad with his funds but registered in the name of his minor son Thakur Rajender Singh. But unfortunately the minor son died before attaining the majority. As a result, late Karan Singh Thakur become the real owner and possessor, as it was purchased by his own funds. Subsequently, he died intestate leaving behind the parties herein as his successors. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she came to know that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 who are his brothers are trying to sell away the property with a view to deceive the other members of the family, thus, she demanded for partition but the defendant Nos.4 and 5 did not come forward, she contacted other sisters also but they did not join her and therefore, she alone has filed the present suit seeking for partition of the suit schedule property. 5. The defendant No.7 has filed written statement admitting averments of the plaint and the same was adopted by the daughters i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6. 6. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 have separately filed written statement contending that the plaintiff has filed a false suit and that they never intended to sell away the property. Further, they contended that the plaintiff has never approached them for partition and separate possession. 6. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 have separately filed written statement contending that the plaintiff has filed a false suit and that they never intended to sell away the property. Further, they contended that the plaintiff has never approached them for partition and separate possession. It is contended that defendant No.7 is the mother of the plaintiff and defendants and that she is living in the suit schedule property and is getting rents approximately around Rs.9,000/- per month and that there are seven tenants residing in the suit schedule property and that defendant No.4 is in possession of one portion of the said property and that the plaintiff and defendants have wrongly furnished their address to be the suit schedule property but they are living away separately in their own households. It is further averred that the suit schedule property contains the temple known as Mata Mandir and a well in dilapidated condition. They further contended that their father has executed a Will deed on 04.04.1993 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 bequeathing the suit schedule property exclusively to both of them and that he left the Will deed with one of the close associates by name T.Gopal Singh, who has delivered it to them very recently through registered post and that they have come to know about the Will very recently and also that Gopal Singh has given reasons for the delay in sending the same. They further averred that though their mother knows about the Will deed she has not revealed about the existence of Will to defendant Nos.4 and 5 for the reasons best known to her and that defendant No.4 who is the elder son has taken over the responsibility of the family and has been bearing the burden along with his father and assisted him in performing the marriages of the last three sisters. It is further averred that as a minor son passed away, their father went into shock. That defendant No.1 has left his private job and the entire responsibility of the family fallen on defendant Nos.4 and 5 and that by virtue of the said Will deed, defendant Nos.4 and 5 have perfected their title over the suit property and hence, they are the owners and possessors of the said property. 7. That defendant No.1 has left his private job and the entire responsibility of the family fallen on defendant Nos.4 and 5 and that by virtue of the said Will deed, defendant Nos.4 and 5 have perfected their title over the suit property and hence, they are the owners and possessors of the said property. 7. Following the death of their mother during the pendency of the proceedings, the plaint was amended accordingly, following which defendant Nos.4 and 5 have filed an additional written statement. It is further averred that on knowing about the Will deed, all his sisters i.e. plaintiff and the other defendants changed their attitude towards their mother and they have harassed their mother and sensing the fate of the case, they have stopped attending the Court and therefore, on 03.12.2010, the suit was dismissed for default, as they have not represented the matter and it is only after the death of their mother, the plaintiff filed the petition to set aside the dismissal order, after four years and that they have filed the petition along with condonation of delay of 1160 days on a false ground that defendant No.7 met with an accident, which is a false averment and were successful in getting the delay condoned. They further submitted that all the averments in the plaint are false and defendant Nos.4 and 5 got the property partitioned through the concerned Registrar with the knowledge of other parties and they have not expressed any objection for a period of four years and that filing the suit and contesting the same is with a malafide intention to knock away the property. 8. The plaintiff further filed rejoinder to the said additional written statement, wherein again the plaint averments were reiterated and denied to be a collusive suit. It is further contended that defendant Nos.4 and 5 have created a Will deed with ulterior motive and that the plaintiff and other defendants living separately from defendant Nos.4 and 5 does not take away their legitimate right of partitioning the suit schedule property. It is further contended that in fact defendant Nos.4 and 5 have harassed their parents, which prompted their father to approach the Inspector of Police, Golconda on 14.03.1992 complaining about the atrocities of defendant Nos.4 and 5. It is further contended that in fact defendant Nos.4 and 5 have harassed their parents, which prompted their father to approach the Inspector of Police, Golconda on 14.03.1992 complaining about the atrocities of defendant Nos.4 and 5. That defendant Nos.4 and 5 cannot gain anything under the forged document and that the suit schedule property is purchased with the hard earned money of their father and they are very much entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. 9. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for trial: “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and allotment of 1/8 th share in the plaint schedule property? 2) Whether the Will dated 04.04.1993 executed by father of defendants No.4 and 5 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiff? 3) Whether plaintiff was given sufficient amount at the time of her marriage and the plaintiff is not entitled for any share? 4) Whether plaintiff has furnished false address of defendants Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6? 5) Whether court fee paid is not correct? 6) Whether seven tenants are in possession of plaint schedule property? 7) Whether suit is bad for non joinder of proper and necessary parties? 8) Whether 7 th defendant mother of the plaintiff has been receiving rents from the tenants and she is eking out her livelihood? 9) To what relief?” 10. On the basis of pleadings in the amended plaint and additional written statement, the following additional issue is framed for trial: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/7th share and the defendants No.1 to 6 are entitled for 1/7 th share each in the suit schedule property as prayed for?” 11. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the defendants, DWs 1 to 4 were examined and the Expert from Truth Lab was examined as CW1 and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked through the defendants, while Ex.C1 was marked through CW1. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has passed a preliminary decree holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7 th share and granting equal shares to the other brothers and sisters. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 12. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has passed a preliminary decree holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7 th share and granting equal shares to the other brothers and sisters. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. 12. Heard the submissions of Sri C.P.Suchitra, learned counsel representing Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri D.V.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri P.Shravan Kumar Goud, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 13. The learned appellants counsel has submitted that the trial Court ought not to have decreed the suit and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective. She further argued that the trial Court has believed the evidence of plaintiff blindly and that it has ignored to observe a fact that PW1 has admitted that her marriage was performed by defendant No.4 herein and also that defendant Nos.4 and 5 are sharing the responsibilities of their family, due to the old age of their father. When these admissions were brought on record, the trial Court was supposed to have believed the version of the defendants that since they shared the responsibilities of joint family, their father has executed a Will deed in favour of only the sons i.e. defendant Nos.4 and 5 and that his daughters did not have any share in the suit schedule property. She further argued that huge amount of dowry and articles were given during the marriages of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and 6 and that they do not have any further share in the suit schedule property. It is the only property left over by the common ancestor and that but for the suit schedule property there is nothing left for defendant Nos.4 and 5 after all the sanctifies they made throughout their life. She further argued that defendant No.4 had to leave his job and offered his services to his parents and the entire family, as there was no other elderly male member to look after the entire affairs of the joint family. She further argued that defendant No.4 had to leave his job and offered his services to his parents and the entire family, as there was no other elderly male member to look after the entire affairs of the joint family. It is also brought out in the evidence before the trial Court that when PW1 and DW4 had some difficulty in their family life, it is the defendant Nos.4 and 5 and their parents who have taken care of the said sisters and that they have always been standing by their side. DW4 has also admitted that when she purchased a property, his brothers defendant Nos.4 and 5 have helped her in purchasing the construction material and helped her financially, which shows that they were sharing all the financial burden of the sisters but now they have filed a suit against them to snatch away the sole property that is existing. She further argued that they were taking care of their parents till their death and that the daughters were overburdened with their own family responsibilities and they never paid any attention to the health of the their parents, however, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are taking care of the health of their parents. She further argued that though their mother is living with the sons, the plaintiff has influenced her and took her consent and that all these sisters and mother got colluded in filing the suit. She further argued that subsequent to the death of their mother and when they served a copy of Will deed to the plaintiff and other sisters, they could sense that the suit would get dismissed and that they stopped approaching the Court but suddenly after four years again they filed a restoration petition and brought the suit alive, that was dismissed for default, it also shows the attitude of the plaintiff. She further argued that all his other sisters did not join the plaintiff in the beginning which she herself mentioned in the plaint but subsequently, the plaintiff could win over all the sisters by luring them with the promise of share in the property. She therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by allowing this appeal. 14. She therefore, prayed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by allowing this appeal. 14. The learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that the whole crux of the case revolves around the Will deed and that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 have relied upon the Will deed stating that their father has executed it bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 but they failed to prove the Will deed. The expert opinion was obtained which clearly discloses that the Will deed does not bear the signature of their father late Karan Singh Thakur. He further argued that the attestor also could not be examined, though initially they presented him to be the witness, subsequently, after the appointment of commissioner his evidence was eschewed pursuant to the orders in CRP No.111 of 2018. It is surprising to note the conduct of the defendants that they say that the Will was kept with one of the close associates of his father who has attended the funeral and also has been attending other functions of the family but he never disclosed about the will. The story concocted by the defendant Nos.4 and 5 is that, very recently they came to know about the Will as Thakur Gopal Singh has posted the Will to them. Thus, the Will is surrounded with suspicious circumstances. It is proved that it is not executed by their father late Karan Singh Thakur, which shows that the suit schedule property is not bequeathed to anyone but late Karan Singh Thakur has died intestate and thus, all his children i.e. the plaintiff and the defendants become the successors of the suit schedule property and that the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 15. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1. 16. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the Will dated 04.04.1993 is proved to be a valid document? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition, if so to what share? 3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable in law and under the facts? 4) To what relief? 17. 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition, if so to what share? 3) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are sustainable in law and under the facts? 4) To what relief? 17. POINT NOS.1 AND 2: a) The contention of the plaintiff is that their father purchased the suit schedule property in the name of minor son and that their brother died at a very young age and thus, their father became the absolute owner of the property. Subsequently, after the death of their father, herself and all other siblings succeed to the said property in equal shares. b) The contention of the defendants, on the other hand, is that their father executed a will deed bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 and that they have already got the said partition into effect between both of them and therefore, nothing is left for partition. In order to see whether the property is available for partition, firstly it has to be seen whether the Will deed was executed by their father and whether it is a valid and genuine document. c) DW1 has expressed no objection to send the document to expert opinion i.e. Will deed to the handwriting expert to prove the signatures of his father and mother. The plaintiff has been disputing the execution of Will deed and when DW1 expressed consent, the said document was sent to truth labs for expert opinion. d) CW1 is the expert who was examined before the Court, he delivered his opinion vide Ex.C1. Ex.C1 discloses that the signature on the Will deed does not match with the admitted signatures of Sri Karan Singh Thakur. In his cross examination certain suggestions were made to him but he denied the same. He stood firm, in his cross examination and his testimony stood unshaken. e) Further in order to prove a Will, examining an attestor is a must as per Section 68 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. The said section is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: “68. He stood firm, in his cross examination and his testimony stood unshaken. e) Further in order to prove a Will, examining an attestor is a must as per Section 68 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. The said section is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: “68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.––If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” f) The contention of the defendant Nos.4 and 5 is that it was attested by Gopal Singh along with another witness. They have not taken any steps in getting the attestor examined, though initially DW3 i.e. Thakur Gopal Singh was supposed to be examined, his chief affidavit was filed and subsequently, it was eschewed and the defendants have not taken any steps to get the witness examined or any other attesting witnesses examined for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, without there being any attesting witness testifying about the execution of Will and when the expert opinion itself shows that the signature of the executants does not match with the specimen signature, then the defendants have no case at all to hold that the Will deed is a valid and genuine document. Therefore, in the absence of Will, the suit schedule property becomes the absolute property of the deceased late Karan Singh Thakur and on his death it gets devolved upon his children i.e. the plaintiff and her siblings. g) It is brought out in the cross examination of PW1 that her marriage and marriage of defendant No.6 was performed by defendant No.4 by taking loan from other sources. Defendant No.6 is her other sister but again she added that they sold a house at Begumbazar and discharged the loan amount. g) It is brought out in the cross examination of PW1 that her marriage and marriage of defendant No.6 was performed by defendant No.4 by taking loan from other sources. Defendant No.6 is her other sister but again she added that they sold a house at Begumbazar and discharged the loan amount. Though the appellants counsel contends that such an admission would show the involvement of defendant No.4 in sharing the burden of the family and that he has sacrificed his life, it is the fact borne out by record that but for the suit schedule property, there is no other house at Begumbazar and it is also an admitted fact through the evidence of DW1 i.e. defendant No.4 that they had a house at Begumbazar which was sold subsequently. Thus, the sale of house at Begumbazar is an admitted fact. Therefore, it probabilize the case of the plaintiff that to meet the family necessities i.e. the performance of marriages of plaintiff and defendant No.6, they might have incurred expenses and to clear away the loans, the house must have been sold. Though it is contended by the defendant Nos.4 and 5 that after the sale of Begumbazar house, they have given a share to the sister, no proof is filed by them in this regard or no oral evidence is adduced in this regard but for the self serving testimony of DW1. A document was confronted to PW1 which is a letter written by her to her brothers, which was admitted by her and the same is marked as Ex.B1. She further stated that at the relevant time, she was residing at Godavarikhani at her in-laws house and that after receiving her letter under Ex.B1, defendant No.4 came to her in-laws house and took her to parents house at Golconda and that due to some matrimonial problems, she stayed with her parents house for some time and thereafter, again she went back to her in-laws. It is further elicited from DW1 that at the time of her marriage defendant Nos.4 and 5 looked after the welfare of the family and that defendant No.4 is working in the police department. Thus, it is elicited from PW1 that defendant Nos.4 and 5 used to share the responsibilities of the family. It is further elicited from DW1 that at the time of her marriage defendant Nos.4 and 5 looked after the welfare of the family and that defendant No.4 is working in the police department. Thus, it is elicited from PW1 that defendant Nos.4 and 5 used to share the responsibilities of the family. h) It is quite understandable that since it was a big family with many daughters, the parents must have depended on the services of their sons i.e. defendant Nos.4 and 5. However, it is also elicited that they have sold away the house at Begumbazar to meet the marital expenses of two daughters. i) Defendant No.4 got himself examined as DW1. It is elicited in his cross examination that he is residing at present at H.No.9-1- 127/A/16/20, Prashanth Nagar, Langerhouse, Hyderabad and that his brother defendant No.5 is residing at house bearing No.13-6- 454/61/A, Hira Nagar, Sabzimandi, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad and that their parents resided at Door No.9-8-47, Fateh Darwaza, Golkonda Fort, Hyderabad. It is elicited from him that the marriage of plaintiff took place on 05.05.1991 and it is further elicited from him that after the death of their father, their mother used to live at the said house in Fatehdarwaja, Golkonda. He stated that his father executed a Will on 04.04.1993 and expired on 06.05.1993 and that before his death he was admitted at NIMS due to Brain Hamarage. It is elicited from him that he came to know about the execution of Will deed on 15.09.2009. j) Defendant No.5 got himself examined as DW2 who is another brother. His chief evidence affidavit is a replica of that filed by defendant No.4 and the same is admitted in his cross examination also. He admitted that their mother also claimed a share in the suit schedule property. It is elicited from him that his father fell sick one year prior to his death and that Gopal Singh attended the funeral of his father and that Gopal Singh has sent the Will deed by post in the year 2009 i.e. on 14.09.2009. He admitted that the suit is filed on 27.04.2009 and they have filed their written statement on 29.09.2009. It is further elicited from him that said Gopal Singh is the brother of defendant No.4’s mother-in-law and that he used to attend their family functions. He admitted that the suit is filed on 27.04.2009 and they have filed their written statement on 29.09.2009. It is further elicited from him that said Gopal Singh is the brother of defendant No.4’s mother-in-law and that he used to attend their family functions. It is further elicited from him that he never informed them about the said Will at any point of time. It is further elicited from him that as the suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition, he informed about the Will deed after 16 years. He admitted that if no case was filed, then he would not have informed about the Will deed. It is elicited from him that they have not filed the partition deed executed between himself and defendant No.4. He admitted that after receiving the notice in restoration petition, the partition deed is executed between himself and his brother. k) DW4 is the sister of plaintiff. She denied the suggestion that her marriage was performed by her brother. She admitted that the marriage of defendant No.5 was performed one day before her marriage. She stated that she does not know whether in 1993, the defendant No.1 instigated defendant No.2 and pressurized their father to sell the house property bearing No.14-6-392, Nagarkhana, Begumbazar, Hyderabad. She admitted that during the said period, the defendant No.2 was residing as a tenant in the said house and admitted that the said house was sold away. She denied the suggestion that out of the sale proceeds, they were given a share. It is elicited from her that her husband worked as a salesman in a jewellery shop and she admitted that they have purchased an open plot at Laxminagar from one Ramesh. She admitted that both her brothers stood by her side in constructing the house and she again added that she repaid all the amount contributed by them. This point is raised by the appellants counsel during the course of arguments stating that the DW4 has admitted that her brothers shared the expenses, which elicit that as male members of the family, they were sharing the responsibilities and that the trial Court failed to observe the same and that since they shared the responsibilities of the family throughout their life, they would succeed to the suit schedule property and not the daughters. However, the other evidence on record shows that DW4 has categorically stated that she repaid the amounts given by her brothers and also has denied the suggestion that they have given a share in the sale proceeds of Begumbazar house. There is no evidence on this aspect by the defendant Nos.4 and 5 to show that the sale proceeds of Begumbazar house was given to their sisters. l) Ex.A1 is the sale deed which shows that the father of the plaintiff has purchased the property in the name of his minor son from one Sri Thakur Narayana Singh. It is an admitted fact that Thakur Rajender Singh son of Thakur Karan Singh was only aged 10 years at the time of purchase and admittedly, he died before attaining majority. The plaintiff has filed the valuation certificate under Ex.A2. Death certificates of her father and mother are filed under Exs.A3 and A4. Ex.A3 reveals that her father died on 06.05.1993 and Ex.A4 reveals that their mother died on 31.10.2013. Thus, it is very much evident that their mother died during the pendency of the proceedings, the suit pertains to 2009 while she died in 2013, she has filed written statement supporting the case of plaintiff, if at all she was aware about the Will deed and if at all she was the signatory to the Will deed, she could have as well disclose the same to her sons and daughters but she has not done so. This again creates a doubt on the very execution of Will deed. However, the will was not proved. The defendants also have filed certain documents. PW1 admitted her signature on postal acknowledgment and the same is marked as Ex.B2. The contention of defendant Nos.4 and 5 is that they have sent copy of Will deed through registered post and that Ex.B2 is its acknowledgment. However, the signature on postal acknowledgment would not aid the defendants in proving that the plaintiff has received the Will deed. Which item is sent under the postal acknowledgment is not known. When the Will deed itself is not proved, serving the same on plaintiff does not aid the defendants in any away in proving their case. Ex.B3 is the unregistered Will deed, Ex.B4 is the letter sent by Thakur Gopal Singh with translation. Which item is sent under the postal acknowledgment is not known. When the Will deed itself is not proved, serving the same on plaintiff does not aid the defendants in any away in proving their case. Ex.B3 is the unregistered Will deed, Ex.B4 is the letter sent by Thakur Gopal Singh with translation. It is elicited from the said letter that Gopal Singh has sent a Will deed along with this letter stating that the said Will deed was given by their father late Thakur Karan Singh in an envelope around 15 to 16 years ago and that he forgot about the same as it was kept in his own papers and that he found the said envelope when he was searching for the sale documents of his own land. Therefore, he has sent the envelope through registered post. This again raises a suspicion when Gopal Singh has attended the funeral also, he has not disclosed the said fact. It is only after the suit got filed in 2009 before filing the written statement, they got this Will on 14.09.2009. This again creates a suspicion. It is admitted by DW2 that they have received this Will deed just 15 days prior to filing of the written statement and subsequent to filing of the suit. The execution itself is not proved and it is elicited clearly that it is brought into existence for the purpose of the suit. Ex.B5 is the postal cover under which the Will deed was sent by Gopal Singh. Ex.B6 is the bunch of medical reports pertaining to defendant No.7. Ex.B7 is the medical reports of plaintiff along with certain medical tests in 2008. Through these two documents, the defendants contention is that they were taking care of their parents’ health and also whenever the plaintiff was ill, they used to take care of her. It is quite understandable and quite common that in big families, whenever one of the members fall ill, they would go to their parental home for their recovery, the same thing must have happened with the plaintiff also. m) Ex.B10 and Ex.B12 are the legal notices and Exs.B11 and B13 are the postal receipts. So none of the documents aid the defendants in proving their contention that the Will was a genuine document and that their father has executed the same bequeathing the property to defendant Nos.4 and 5. m) Ex.B10 and Ex.B12 are the legal notices and Exs.B11 and B13 are the postal receipts. So none of the documents aid the defendants in proving their contention that the Will was a genuine document and that their father has executed the same bequeathing the property to defendant Nos.4 and 5. Thus, the scheme of intestate succession opens up on the death of their father. n) It is pertinent to refer to Section 6 of the HINDU SUCCESSION ACT , 1956. The same is extracted hereunder: “ 6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property .?(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,? (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenery property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenery property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. (2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by testamentary disposition. (3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), his interest in the property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and the coparcenery property shall be deemed to have been divided as if a partition had taken place and,? (a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a son; (b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter; and (c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may be. Explanation.?For the purposes of this sub-section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. (4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt: Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect? (a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or (b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005) had not been enacted. Explanation.?For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005). Explanation.?For the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005). (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of December, 2004. Explanation.?For the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.” o) Thus, the plaintiff claims equal share in the property along with other siblings. p) It is pertinent to mention here that defendant No.4 died during the pendency of the proceedings and thus, his legal heirs are brought on record representing the share of defendant No.4. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff stands proved that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of their father Thakur Karan Singh and that he died intestate and thus, the property devolves equally upon all his children. q) It is a well settled principle laid down by the Apex court in Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma , AIR 2020 SCC 3717 , wherein it was held that every daughter is a coparcener and has a right to share in the joint family properties and that the amendment to Section 6 of the Act, 1956 has retrospective effect. r) In light of the said decision and in view of the discussion held above, Thakur Karan Singh is succeeded by two sons and five daughters, therefore, it is held that the plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to equal shares in the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7 th share in the suit schedule property. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 18. POINT NO. 3: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. 18. POINT NO. 3: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are found to be well reasoned and hence, they are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. POINT NO.4: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 06.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.561 of 2009 by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.