- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2532 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT ANJINAMMA D/O LATE GOWRAMMA, W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. CHIKKANAHALLI, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SMT. MUNITHAYAMMA D/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, W/O MUDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT HEMARANA HALLI (V) AND (P), JANGAMA KOTE HOBLI, SHIDLLAGATTA(T), CHIKABALAPUR DISTRICT. 3. SMT. KEMPAMMA D/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, W/O ASHWATAPPA.K. AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO. 539, NEW NO.52, SUMANGALI SEVA ASHRAMA ROAD, DODDA KENCHAPPA BADAWANI, R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560032 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY AND SRI. SAI SUHAS G, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 2. SRI RAJANNA, S/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 3. SRI RAMAIAH, S/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 4. SRI SHIVAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 5. SRI CHIKAMUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. ALL 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT ANANTHAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE. 6. SRI ABDUL SALAM, S/O ABDUL GAFFA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT KRISHNARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER A ABDUL RAFEEKH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHIM SAB, R/AT NO. 300, 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038. 7. M/S. H.M. CONSTRUCTIONS, PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS, (A) MR.H.J SIWANI, (B) M. R.M.J. SIWANI. 8. SRI A. SANDEEP KUMAR, S/O LATE A. SHANKARANARAYANA UDUPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17, 'SANTOSH', 1ST CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560086. 9. SRI A. MANJUNATHA UDUPA, S/O LATE A. SHANKARANARAYANA UDUPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.17, 'SANTOSH', 1ST CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560086 10. SRI A. SANTHOSH UDUPA, S/O LATE A. SHANKARANARAYANA UDUPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO. 17, 'SANTOSH', 1ST CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560086 11. SRI YOGESH KUMAR, S/O BHUJANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, 11TH CROSS, LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560024. 12. SRI V. KOTESHWAR RAO, S/O V VENKATESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.F-503, ETA GARDENS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560023. 13. SRI VENUGOPALAPURAM, S/O P. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, 4TH FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560027, REPRESENTED BY HIS P.A.HOLDER SRI D. SURESH S/O D.H.ANJANEYALU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 14. SRI K. DAYANANDA, S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.703, 6TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, GOKULA 1 STAGE, II PHASE, YESHWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU 560022. 15. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR SRIRAMA, S/O SRIRAMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 16. SMT. KAVITHA CHOWDAPPA, W/O CHANDRASHEKAR SRIRAMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. THE DEFENDANTS NO.15 & 16 ARE R/AT NO.60/A, 2ND CROSS, SUNDARNAGAR, GOKULA, BENGALURU-560054. REPRESENTED BY THEIR P.A. HOLDER SMT. SUSHMA. C, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 D/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, GODREJ UNITED FLAT NO.VISTA-B-1003, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, HOODI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560048. 17. SMT. N.R. SHOBHA, W/O DR. V SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT HUNESEMARADA DODDI, GANALU POST, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R7; SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY M R, ADVOCATE FOR R8, R9, R12, R13, R14, R17) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.1792/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1792/2013 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, whereby the said suit filed by the appellants – plaintiffs against the respondents – defendants for partition and separate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 possession of their alleged 1/8th share in the suit schedule immovable property was dismissed by the trial court. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rankings before the trial court. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit interalia contending that they are the daughters of late Doddapillappa, who was the son of late Muniveerappa who had one more son, Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa, brother of Doddapillappa. It was contended that their father Doddapillappa had 5 sons, i.e., defendants 1 to 5 and that they constituted Hindu undivided joint family along with the plaintiffs. 4. The plaintiffs contended that a land bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 3 acres 37 guntas situated at Anantapura village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, was granted in favour of their uncle Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa in the year 1958- 59. Subsequently, upon the demise of the aforesaid Muniveerappa, his two sons, viz., plaintiffs father Doddapillappa and his brother Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa divided and partitioned the aforesaid property into two equal portions by way of a partition, in which, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 suit schedule property measuring 1 acre 38.5 guntas was allotted to the share of Doddapillappa, father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5. It was contended that the khata of the suit schedule property was mutated to the name of Doddapillappa vide MR No.18/82-83 and he was the ‘kartha’ of the joint family comprising of himself, plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5. 5. The plaintiffs contend that the said Doddapillappa and his sons, the defendants 1 to 5 executed a registered sale agreement dated 15.01.1987 in favour of defendant No.6 who instituted a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit schedule property against them in O.S.No.225/1994 which was decreed in favour of 6th defendant, in whose favour a registered sale deed dated 28.01.1995 was executed through execution proceedings. Thereafter, vide registered sale deed dated 08.07.2004, 6th defendant sold 13 guntas of land in the suit schedule property in favour of 7th defendant vide registered sale deed dated 08.07.2004, while the remaining extent was developed and a residential layout was formed and sites sold in favour of defendants 8 to 17. It is a matter of record that in the first instance, defendants 7 to 17 were not arrayed as parties to the suit and were impleaded subsequently - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 and defendants 1 to 6 having been placed ex-parte and not contested the suit, the suit has been contested only by defendants 7 to 17. 6. It is contended that Doddapillappa father of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 expired on 23.12.2005, in pursuance of which, plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 became the joint owners in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and since, defendants 1 to 5 did not comply with the request of the plaintiffs to effect partition of the suit schedule property and the alienations made by Doddapillappa and defendants 1 to 5 not being binding upon the plaintiffs, they instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendants. 7. As stated supra, the 7th defendant and defendants 8 to 17 who were subsequently impleaded, filed separate written statement interalia disputing the denying the claim of the plaintiffs. It is contended that during his life time itself, Doddapillappa along with defendants 1 to 5 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of 6th defendant who had got a registered sale deed dated 28.01.1995 executed in his favour vide Execution proceedings in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 Ex.P.No.87/1994 arising out of O.S.No.225/1994, in pursuance of which, 6th defendant became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It was contended that thereafter the 6th defendant got the suit schedule property converted / diverted for non-agricultural purposes vide order dated 06.03.1996 and sold 13 guntas of land out of the suit schedule property in favour of 7th defendant vide registered sale deed vide 08.07.2004 and the remaining extent to various other purchasers including defendants 8 to 17. 8. It was also contended that the 7th defendant and other purchasers including defendants 8 to 17 had become the absolute owners in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, over which, the plaintiffs did not have any manner of right, title, interest or possession especially in the light of the proviso to the amended provisions to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, which fixes the cut off date as 20.12.2024 and the suit schedule property having been sold in favour of 6th defendant on 28.01.1995, much prior to the aforesaid cut off date, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property. It was also contended that the suit was barred by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 limitation and not maintainable and the same was liable to be dismissed, especially when the suit schedule property had been alienated by Doddapillappa and his sons defendants 1 to 5 on 28.01.1995 itself much prior to the cut off date i.e., 20.12.2024 stipulated in the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is therefore contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the suit which was liable to be dismissed. 9. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- ISSUES 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that suit property is the joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5? 2. Whether plaintiffs prove that sale agreement dated 15.01.1987 and sale deed dated 28.01.1995 are not binding on the share of plaintiffs? 3. Whether defendants prove that suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law? 4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for partition as sought for? 5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as sought for? 6. What order or decree? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 Additional Issue 1. Whether the plaintiffs have properly valued the suit and paid proper court fee?” 10. The plaintiffs examined their power of attorney holder as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P45 were marked on their behalf, while, defendant No.7 examined himself as DW-1 and defendant No.9 as DW-2 and documentary evidence at Exs.D1 to D59 were marked on their behalf. 11. After hearing the parties, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs, who are before this Court by way of the present appeal. 12. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellants and learned Senior counsel for the 7th respondent and learned counsel for respondents 8 to 17 and perused the material on record. 13. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 decree passed by the trial court is contrary to facts and law and the same deserves to be set aside. She would also filed written submissions, which are extracted as hereunder:- Brief case of the Plaintiff as pleaded before the Trial court is as follows: ● The plaintiffs are the daughters of Sri Doddapillappa. Their grandfather Sri Muniveerappa had two sons: Sri Doddapillappa (father of plaintiffs and defendants 1–5) Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa. ● The Plaintiffs and defendants 1–5 together constitute a Hindu Undivided Joint Family (HUF). ● Land measuring 3 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.33, Ananthapura Village was originally granted under the Inam Abolition Act to Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa. After the death of Muniveerappa, the two brothers orally partitioned the property and 1 acre 38½ guntas (the suit schedule property) fell to the share of Sri Doddapillappa. Mutation (katha) was effected in his name as per M.R. No.18/82-83. Plaintiffs state that the suit land remained ancestral joint family property. ● Father of plaintiffs and defendants 1–5 allegedly executed a sale agreement dated 15.01.1987/1997 in favour of defendant No.6 without legal necessity or benefit to the family. Based on this agreement, defendant No.6 filed O.S. No.225/1994 for specific performance and obtained a decree, followed by a court- executed sale deed dated 28.01.1995. Defendant No.6 later - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 sold portions of the property, including 13 guntas to defendant No.7 on 08.07.2004. ● The father and defendants 1–5 had no independent right to alienate joint family property. All sale transactions and the specific performance decree are not binding on the plaintiffs’ share. After their father’s death on 23.12.2005, plaintiffs and defendants 1–5 became joint owners; plaintiffs demanded partition in November 2013. Defendants did not cooperate; hence the suit was filed, seeking partition and declaration. The Defendants 1–6 remained ex parte. The Suit was decreed on 25.02.2021 declaring plaintiffs entitled to sale deeds and decree were held not binding on them. Final decree drawn in FDP No.42/2022. Brief case of the Defendant No.7 as pleaded before the Trial court is as follows: ● Land in Sy.No.33, Ananthapura Village, measuring 3 acres 37 guntas, was originally granted to Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa, S/o Muniveerappa, under the Inam Abolition Act, by order of the Special Deputy Commissioner in Case No.20/58-59. After the death of Muniveerappa, his sons Sri Doddapillappa (father of plaintiffs and defendants No.1–5) and Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa partitioned the land between themselves. ● In the said partition- 1 acre 38½ guntas (the suit property) fell to the share of Sri Doddapillappa. Mutation was made in his name vide M.R. No.18/82-83. Defendant No.7 admits these facts but asserts that the subsequent alienations were valid and binding. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 ● Sri Doddapillappa, along with his sons (Defendants 1–5), executed a registered agreement of sale dated 15.01.1997 in favour of Defendant No.6. When they failed to execute the sale deed, Defendant No.6 filed O.S.No.225/1994 before the II Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, for specific performance. Defendant No.6 obtained a decree for specific performance dated 27.08.1994 and a registered sale deed dated 28.01.1995 through court execution proceedings in Ex.P.No.57/1994. ● Defendant No.6 converted the suit property vide ALN:SR:134:95-96 dated 06.03.1996. Thereafter, Defendant No.6 sold various portions of the converted land. He sold 13 guntas of the suit property to Defendant No.7 under a registered sale deed dated 08.07.2004. The remaining portions were sold to different purchasers (who later became defendants No.8 to 17). Defendant No.7 contends that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment since the date of purchase. The Plaintiffs were never in possession and Suit filed in 2013 to challenge a 1995 sale deed and prior proceedings is barred by limitation. ● The alienation occurred before 20.12.2004, the cut-off date under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. As per the proviso to Section 6, any alienation prior to 20.12.2004 cannot be reopened. Plaintiffs, being daughters, cannot claim coparcenary rights retrospectively over property already alienated long before the amendment. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 ● Plaintiffs allegedly suppressed the existence of the specific performance decree (1994)The execution sale deed (1995) , Multiple subsequent sales and layout development. Defendant No.7 therefore contends that the suit is not maintainable, barred in law, and deserves dismissal. Brief case of the Defendant No.8-17 as pleaded before the Trial court is as follows: ● The defendants No.8–17 adopt the foundational title of Defendant No.6, asserting that Defendant No.6 became absolute owner of the suit property through: Agreement of sale (15.01.1987/1997), Specific performance decree (O.S.No.225/1994), Execution sale deed (28.01.1995), Conversion order (06.03.1996). Thus, the suit property was validly alienated long before plaintiffs approached the court. ● Defendants No.8–17 detail the entire development process- Township Builders & Developers, a partnership firm, owned around 27 acres 2½ guntas of converted land in Sy.Nos.32/1, 32/2, 32/3, 33, 37, 38, 39, 52, 52/1, 52/2, and 53 of Ananthapura Village. This includes the lands purchased from Defendant No.6. The firm entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 04.07.2003 with M/s DUO Marvel Associates. ● A layout plan was approved on 26.07.2003 and all statutory permissions from: BESCOM, BWSSB, an, Other authorities were obtained. A fully developed residential layout known as “DUO Marvel Layout” was formed. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 ● Each defendant details their individual acquisitions: D8 – Site No.37 (Will dated 15.02.2011 from father; original purchase by father on 28.02.2004) D9 – Site No.41 (same Will; original purchase 28.02.2004) D10 – Site No.44 (same Will; original purchase 28.02.2004) D11 – Site No.51 (Sale deed 08.03.2004) D12 – Site No.45 (Sale deed 22.03.2004) D13 – Site No.42 (Sale deed 22.03.2004) D14 – Site No.43 (Sale deed 27.02.2004) D15 & D16 – Joint purchasers of Site No.36 (Sale deed 09.07.2010) D17 – Purchased Site No.50 (Sale deed 05.03.2004) All claim to be bona fide purchasers for value. ● Defendants No.8–17 argue that Plaintiffs are daughters who cannot reopen transactions made before 20.12.2004, because Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 protects all prior alienations, partitions, dispositions. Since the property was alienated via the 1995 court sale deed, plaintiffs have no surviving share. ● Suit filed in 2013 challenges sales of 1995–2004, hence hopelessly barred by limitation. DATES: Through Court process, Sale Deed dated: 28.01.1995 Executed in favour of: Defendant No.6 Defendant No.6 – Purchasers from:– Sri Doddapillappa and Defendants No.1–5 Dates: Agreement of Sale 15.01.1997 (but plaintiffs allege 15.01.1987) - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 Date of oral partition between Doddapillappa and Chikka Pillappa : occurred after the death of Muniveerappa (1986) Date of Sale Deed : 28.01.1995 Date of death of Sri Doddapillappa : 23.12.2005 Date of filing of suit: 2013 Submissions on Interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended) 1. As per the Section 6(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended by Act 39 of 2005) unequivocally provides that the daughter of a coparcener shall, by birth, become a coparcener in her own right, in the same manner as the son. The conferment of coparcenary status by birth places the daughter on exactly the same footing as a son, entitling her to identical rights and liabilities in coparcenary property 2. It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that a proviso cannot curtail, override, or nullify the substantive provision of the section. The proviso is intended only to qualify or carve out a limited exception, and cannot be read so as to defeat the very object of the main enactment. The legislative objective behind the amendment to Section 6 was to remove gender discrimination and confer equal proprietary rights upon daughters in coparcenary property. 3. Any interpretation of the proviso which restricts or extinguishes the rights of a woman coparcener would render the main provision ineffective and defeat the purpose of the amendment. Such an interpretation is impermissible in law, as it would amount to allowing the proviso to override - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 the principal enactment, which is contrary to established principles of statutory construction. If the proviso is interpreted so as to curtail the rights of a woman coparcener claiming her share in the only coparcenary property alienated by the father, it would effectively treat the proviso as an independent substantive provision, which is not legally supported. 4. According to Clause (a) of Section 6 expressly treats the daughter as a coparcener by birth. Therefore, the proviso must necessarily be read in harmony with the main provision, and not as governing or controlling it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma has categorically held that the amended Section 6 confers unobstructed heritage upon daughters, and their right is not dependent upon the death of the father. Reference may be made to the observations in Vineeta Sharma, wherein the Court emphasized that the amendment has a retroactive effect and daughters acquire coparcenary rights by birth. 5. Comparison Between Unamended and Amended Section 6:- Principle Old Section 6 (Pre-2005) Amended Section 6 (Post-2005) Status of daughter Not a coparcener Coparcener by birth Mode of succession Survivorship subject to notional partition Coparcenary rights equal to son Right during father’s lifetime No independent right Full coparcenary right Gender equality Discriminatory Gender-neutral Alienation by father Broad powers Powers Restricted by coparcenary rights of daughters 6. The heading of Section 6 reads “Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.” The term “devolution” in its ordinary dictionary meaning signifies: “The legal - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 transmission of property or rights from one person to another, especially on death.” Thus, the concept of devolution arises only upon the death of the owner/coparcener, and not prior thereto. In the present case, the question of devolution arises only after the death of Doddapillappa on 23.12.2005 and therefore the rights of the daughters must be examined as on that date, with full effect given to the amended Section 6. 7. In light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh and Ashok Kumar v. Ashnoor Singh, it is settled law that once a child is born, the father’s interest in coparcenary property is no longer absolute. The father cannot alienate coparcenary property unilaterally so as to defeat the vested rights of other coparceners, except for legal necessity or with their consent. Consequently, Pillappa could not have sold the coparcenary property without the consent of the daughters, who were coparceners by birth. Any alienation made against coparcenary rights is therefore not binding on the daughters, and is liable to be questioned. 8. Why retrospective effect should not be given to the Central Amendment and the logic behind challenge to alienation earlier to 20.12.2004 being discouraged have not been considered in Vineethasharm’s case. GROUNDS 1. The Trial Court has gravely erred in dismissing the suit by placing exclusive reliance on the proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended), holding that alienations prior to 20.12.2004 are - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 protected and cannot be reopened. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the proviso cannot override or nullify the substantive right created under Section 6(1)(a), which confers coparcenary rights by birth on daughters, and therefore the dismissal of the suit solely on the basis of the proviso is legally unsustainable. 2. The Trial Court has failed to consider the admitted and undisputed fact that there was an oral partition between the two brothers, Sri Doddapillappa and Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa, pursuant to which 1 acre 38½ guntas fell to the share of Sri Doddapillappa, followed by mutation in his name vide M.R. No.18/82–83. This vital fact, which determines the character of the property, has been completely ignored while adjudicating the rights of the parties. The Trial Court erred in not appreciating that once an oral partition took place between the brothers in or around 1983, the property that fell to the share of Sri Doddapillappa retained the character of ancestral property vis-à-vis his children, all of whom were admittedly born prior to the said partition. Consequently, Sri Doddapillappa held the property not as absolute owner, but as Karta of the joint family consisting of himself and his children. 3. The Trial Court failed to apply the binding ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh, wherein it has been categorically held that once a son or daughter is born, the father ceases to have absolute dominion over ancestral property, and any alienation made without legal necessity or consent of other coparceners is not binding on them. This crucial legal position directly - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 applies to the present case and vitiates the impugned dismissal. 14. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the 7th respondent as well as learned counsel for respondents 8 to 17 submit that in the light of the undisputed fact that the suit schedule property had been alienated on 28.01.1995 by Doddapillappa and defendants 1 to 5, in the light of the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and the principles laid down in the case of Vineetha Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma – (2020) 9 SCC 1 and the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Susheelamma vs. K.Seetharamaiah & others - RSA No.2586/2010 dated 02.11.2023 with reference to the Karnataka Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable and the trial court has correctly dismissed the suit by passing the impugned judgment and decree which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 15. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 16. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeals are; - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 (i) Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit filed by the respondents against the appellants? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? Re-Point Nos. 1 and 2: 17. Since both these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration. 18. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned order will indicate that the trial court has relied heavily upon the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment), 2005 in order to come to the conclusion that the suit schedule property having been alienated by Doddapillappa and his sons defendants 1 to 5 on 28.01.1995, much prior to the stipulated cut off dated i.e., 20.12.2024, as enunciated by the Apex Court in Vineetha Sharma’s case supra, coupled with the fact that Doddapillappa had expired on 23.12.2005 after the amendment came into force on 09.09.2005, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property. The trial court also took note of the fact that as on the date when the Hindu Succession - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force on 09.09.2005, the suit schedule property had already stood alienated much earlier on 28.01.1995 and Doddapillappa having expired subsequently on 23.12.2005, the suit schedule property was not available for partition, as a result of which, the plaintiffs were not entitled to put forth any claim over the suit schedule property. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial court held as under:- R E A S O N S 29. Issue Nos.1 to 5:- As these issues are inter connected with each other, they are taken up together for common discussion, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence. 30. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 are the children of Sri Doddapillappa and Sri. Doddapillappa, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 constitute Hindu Undivided joint family. According to the plaintiffs, the larger extent measuring 3 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.33 situated at Ananthapura Village was granted in favour of brother of plaintiffs’ father namely Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa, S/o Muniyappa under Inam Abolition Act in case No.20/58-59 dated 21.10.1959. Thereafter, two brothers namely Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa and Sri Doddapillappa have partitioned the said land. Wherein which the suit property was allotted to the share of father of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 sri. Doddapillappa. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 Therefore the plaintiffs contended that the suit property is the ancestral property and joint family and of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5. 31. The defendants No.8 to 17 have not disputed the fact that the suit property was granted in favour of Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa, S/o Muniveerappa under Inam Abolition Act, as per the order of Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition Act in case No.20/58-59, 21/58-59. Whereas the defendant No.7 has evasively denied that the suit property was the ancestral and joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 but not specifically stated in his written statement as to the nature of the suit property as whether it is the self acquired property or so. 32. In the backdrop of the pleadings of parties as to the nature of the suit property, if the documents produced by the plaintiffs is looked into. Ex.P3 & 4 i.e., order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bengaluru in case No.HOA/58-59 and endorsement issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition. Bengaluru Circle makes it abundantly clear that an extent of 3 acres 37 guntas of land situated at Ananthapura village was granted in favour of Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa S/o Muniveerappa, under Section 9 of Inam Abolition Act. 33. It is contended by the plaintiffs that after obtaining the grant of larger extent of land measuring 3 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.33 situated at Ananthapura village, in the name of brother of plaintiffs’ father Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa the father of plaintiffs Sri Doddapillappa and - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 his brother Sri Pillaga @ Chikkapillappa have partitioned the said land. Wherein which suit property was allotted to the share of plaintiffs namely Sri Doddapillappa, as such, it is contended by the plaintiffs that the suit property is the joint family property of Sri. Doddapillappa consisting of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5. 34. The defendants No.7 to 17 have not disputed that there was partition in respect of larger extent of land in Sy.No.33 measuring 3 acres 37 guntas situated at Ananthapura village and in the said partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of plaintiffs. Ex.P11 – hand written RTC produced by the plaintiffs speaks that the suit property was stood in the name of father of plaintiffs Sri Doddapillappa pursuant to partition. Therefore it is clear that the suit property was the joint family property of Sri Doddapillappa consisting of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5. 35. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs have contended that Sri Doddapillappa had 8 children namely plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5. There is no dispute from the defendants as to the said aspect of fact. Ex.P1 - family tree speaks that Sri Doddapillappa had 8 children namely plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5. Therefore it is clear that the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 5 along with Sri Doddapillappa constituted Hindu undivided joint family. 36. Now the prime question to be considered in the suit is that whether the plaintiffs have got right to claim share in the suit property. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 Sri Doddapillappa, The father of the plaintiffs along with his five sons namely defendants No.1 to 5 have entered into agreement of sale dated 15.01.1987 with defendant No.6 in respect of the suit property and agreed to sell the suit property. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that, based on the said agreement of sale, the defendant No.6 has filed suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.225/1994 and got obtained the decree dated 26.07.1994 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.01.1987 and thereafter based on the said decree, the defendant No.6 got obtained the sale deed dated 28.01.1995 by initiating execution petition No.87/1994. 37. It is specifically contended by the plaintiffs that father of the plaintiffs Sri Doddapillappa and his five sons namely the defendants No.1 to 5 had no exclusive right to execute agreement of sale dated 15.01.1987. Therefore the said sale agreement and subsequent transactions namely the decree obtained in O.S.No.225/1994 as well as sale deed dated 28.01.1995 and sale deed dated 08.07.2004 are not binding on the plaintiffs. 38. The defendants no.7 to 17 have contended that on execution of the agreement of sale dated 15.01.1987, by Sri Doddapillappa and the defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of defendant no.6, the defendant No.6 filed suit for specific performance in O.S.No.225/1994 and got obtained the decree on 27.08.1994 and also got enforcement of said decree in the execution petition on 87/94 by obtaining the sale deed dated 28.01.1995. That the sale deed dated - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 28.01.1995 was obtained much prior to the cut off date as provided under Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Therefore the plaintiffs being the daughters are debarred from claiming right over the suit property. 39. It is pertinent to note that admittedly Sri Doddapillappa and his five sons namely the defendants No.1 to 5 have executed agreement of sale dated 15.01.1987 in favour of defendant No.6. Relevant to note that based on the said agreement of sale dated 15.01.1987, the defendant No.6 has filed suit in O.S.No.225/1994 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.01.1987. Ex.P38 to 45 i.e., certified copy of plaint, compromise petition, decree, memo and order sheet speaks that based on the agreement of sale dated 15.01.1987 executed by Sri Doddapillappa and his sons namely the defendants No.1 to 5, the defendant No.6 has filed the suit and got obtained the decree in favour of defendant No.6, wherein which it was directed to Sri.Doddapillappa and defendants no.1 to 5 to execute the sale deed in respect of suit property in favour of defendant No.6. 40. Further, Ex.P6- sale deed dated 28.01.1995 discloses that the defendant no.6 obtained sale deed pertaining to the suit property through process of court by filing execution petition No.87/1994. Therefore it is clear that the defendant No.6 has obtained the sale deed pertaining to the suit property under Ex.P6 –sale deed dated 28.01.1995. Therefore it is clear that as on the date of the commencement of Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act, 2005 - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 the suit property was not available with the joint family of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5. It is to be noted that Sub(1) of section 6 of Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act, 2005 provides that from the date of commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment)Act, 2005, the daughter is conferred with the co-parcenary right in the same manner as that of the son, that is to say on or from the date of 09.09.2005 on which date the Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force, the daughters are treated as co-parcener in the same manner as that of the son and has got equal right in the co-parcenary property as that of the son. The right conferred upon daughters, as per above provision, are qualified by by proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. which speaks that any disposition of joint family property or partition which had taken place prior to 20th December, 2004, shall not be invalidated and such alienation or partition are protected. That means to say that the daughters have conferred with right to share in the joint family property as that of the son, on from the commencement of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. However in respect of the property which had been alienated prior to 20.12.2004, the daughters have got no right to challenge the such alienation. In this context, it is necessary to mention the decision reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, wherein it has been held in para No.60 as follows: parcenary property as that of the son. The right conferred upon daughters, as per above provision, are qualified by by - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 proviso to sub-section (1)of Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. which speaks that any disposition of joint family property or partition which had taken place 60.The amended provisions of Section 6(1) provide that on and from the commencement of the Amendment Act, the daughter is conferred the right. Section 6(1)(a) makes daughter by birth a coparcener”in her own right” and “in the same manner as the son”. Section 6(1) (a) contains the concept of the unobstructed heritage of Mithakshara coparcenary, which is by virtue of birth, would have had if. Section 6(1)(b) confers the same rights in the coparcenary property “as she would have had if she had been a son”. The conferral of right is by birth, and the rights are given in the same manner with incidents of coparcenary as that of a son and she is treated as a coparcener in the same manner with the same rights as if she had been a son at the time of birth. Though the rights can be claimed, w.e.f. 09.09.2005, the provisions are of retroactive application; they confer benefits based on the antecedent event, and the Mithakshara coparcenary law shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter as a coparcener. At the same time, the legislature has provided savings by adding a proviso that any disposition or alienation, if there by any testamentary disposition of the property or partition which has been taken place before 20.12.2004, the date on which the Bill was presented in the Rajya Sabha, shall not be invalidated”. 41. Thus, as noted above, in view of express bar under the proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 6 of Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act, 2005, alienation of suit property as per Ex.P6- sale deed dated 28.01.1995 which took place much prior to the cut off date i.e., 20.12.2004 as provided under above provision of law, the plaintiffs cannot challenge the said sale deed i.e., means to say that the plaintiffs have got no share in such property. Therefore case of the plaintiffs that they being the daughters of Sri Doddapillappa have got share in the property has to fail. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 42.That apart, it is necessary to note that much prior to the Central amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, in the state of Karnataka, the daughters have been conferred with co-parcenary right by way of The Karnataka Hindu Succession(Amendment) Act, 1990, wherein which the daughters have been conferred with equal right in the coparceneary property in the same manner as that of the son. In the decision reported in ILR 2020 Kar.2697 in the case of Smt.Padmavathi and another Vs. Smt. Jayamma(since dead by Lrs) and others, it has been held that, The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Central Amendment Act would come into force from 9.09.2005. The eclipse of the Karnataka amendment being prospective from 9.09.2005, the period prior to 9.09.2005 going back to 30.07.1994 would, therefore, be occupied by the Karnataka Amendment, the same not having been repealed by the Karnataka Legislature, but having only been eclipsed by the Central Amendment. 66. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there are three-time lines which would be in operation in the State of Karnataka, viz., (i) From 1956- 29.07.1994 — when unamended Section 6 of HSA would be applicable; (ii) 30.07.1994 — 8.9.2005 — When the Karnataka amendment to the HSA would be applicable; and (iii) Post 9.09.2005 — subject to the conditions in PHULAVATFS case, (supra) being satisfied, Section 6 of the HSA Act as amended by the Central Amendment Act, would be applicable. 43. From the above decision, it is clear that in the case of pertaining to period from 30.07.1994 till 08.09.2005, - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 The Karnataka Amendment to Hindu Succession Act would prevail. Therefore it is proper to ascertain whether the plaintiffs being the daughters of Sri.Doddapillappa have got right the suit property as provided under Hindu Succession Karnataka (Amendment) Act, 1990. In this regard, it is necessary to mention that daughters to be qualified to obtain share in the undivided Hindu joint family property under Hindu Succession (Karnataka) Amendment Act, 1990 the condition prescribed under Section 6A (d) has to be fulfilled. which speaks that to obtain the share in the Hindu undivided joint family, as per the provision of Hindu Succession (Karnataka) Amendment Act, the daughters must remain unmarried as on 30.07.1990 and as on 30.07.1994 no partition was effected in the joint family. 44. Now it is proper to see whether the plaintiffs being the daughters are qualified to obtain the share under Hindu Succession (Karnataka) Amendment act, 1990. In the plaint, there is no material pleading as to whether the plaintiffs have remained unmarried before 30.07.1994. In the cross- examination of PW.1, at para No.3, PW.1 has stated that the plaintiff No.1 might have married before 1973, the plaintiff No.2 might have married two years after 1973 and the plaintiff No.3 might have married in the year 1978. Further it is to be noted that at the time of canvassing the argument, the court has ascertained from the learned counsel for the plaintiff as to whether the plaintiffs have remained unmarried as on 30.07.1994 to which the learned counsel for plaintiffs has fairly submitted that the plaintiffs have married before 1980. Therefore it is clear that as on the date of 30.07.1994 - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 the plaintiffs had already been married. Therefore the plaintiffs are not qualified even under Hindu Succession (Karnataka) Amendment Act, 1990 to get share in the suit property. Therefore the case of plaintiffs that they have got share in the suit property has to fail. In view of the same, issue Nos.1,2,4 & 5 are answered in Negative and issue No.3 is answered in Affirmative. 45. It is necessary to note that since the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim share in the suit property in view of the specific bar under the provision of law, as discussed above, the discussion in respect of documentary evidence relied by the defendants is not necessary. 46. Additional Issue No.1:- It is contended by the defendant No.7 that in view of the alienation of the suit property in favour of the defendant No.6 as per sale deed dated 15.01.1987 and subsequent sale deeds the plaintiff have not been in possession of the suit property. Therefore the valuation arrived by the plaintiffs and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper. 47. It is relevant to note that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition claiming that they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with the defendant No.1 to 5, By asserting so, they have valued the suit under Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and paid court fee as prescribed under law. Since the plaintiffs claim to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property, therefore the question of court fee has to be considered based on the said assertion of the - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 plaintiffs. Said view is supported by the decision reported in (1980)2 SCC 247 in the case of Neelavathi and other and N. Natarajan and other, wherein it has been held that the question of court fee must be considered in the light of the allegation made in the plaint and its decision can not be influenced either by the plea in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on the merits. 48. Therefore, valuation arrived by the plaintiffs is proper and the plaintiffs have paid proper court fee. In view of the same, additional issue No.1 is answered in Affirmative. 49. Issue No.6:- In view of discussions and reasons stated in issue no.1 to 5, the court proceed to pass the following; O R D E R Suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with cost. Draw decree accordingly.” 18.1 In Vineetha Sharma’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “137. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under: 137.1. The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after the amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 137.2. The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9-9-2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. 137.3. Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcener should be living as on 9-9-2005. 137.4. The statutory fiction of partition created by the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the Schedule to the 1956 Act or male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed, the daughters are to be given share in coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. 137.5. In view of the rigour of provisions of the Explanation to Section 6(5) of the 1956 Act, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 manner as if it had been affected (sic effected) by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly. 138. We understand that on this question, suits/appeals are pending before different High Courts and subordinate courts. The matters have already been delayed due to legal imbroglio caused by conflicting decisions. The daughters cannot be deprived of their right of equality conferred upon them by Section 6. Hence, we request that the pending matters be decided, as far as possible, within six months. 139. In view of the aforesaid discussion and answer, we overrule the views to the contrary expressed in Prakash v. Phulavati [Prakash v. Phulavati, (2016) 2 SCC 36 : (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 549] and Mangammal v. T.B. Raju [Mangammal v. T.B. Raju, (2018) 15 SCC 662 : (2019) 1 SCC (Civ) 300] . The opinion expressed in Danamma v. Amar [Danamma v. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 385] is partly overruled to the extent it is contrary to this decision. Let the matters be placed before appropriate Bench for decision on merits.” 18.2 As stated supra, apart from the various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court relied upon by the trial court, in Smt.Susheelamma’s case supra, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:- - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 “8. The question that requires consideration at the hands of this Court is, merely because a partition suit was instituted post Karnataka amendment to Hindu Succession Act in terms of Sections 6(A) and 6(C), would disentitle the married daughters in availing the benefit of amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act. 9. The first era of confusion about the proper interpretation of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 amendment which had been set to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prakash vs. Phulavati’s case has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Danamma vs. Amar's case. Section 6 of amended Act treated a female coparcener at par with a male coparcener. This Court interpreted the Amendment Act with retrospective effect from the date of coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, while the Full Bench of Bombay High Court interpreted the Amendment Act to have effect from the date of coming into force of Amendment Act. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Phulavati's case laid to rest this uncertainty by holding as follows: "Accordingly, we hold that the rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9-9-2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born.” 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Danamma's case was dealing with the controversy relating to death of a male coparcener. In Danamma’s case, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that father passed away in 2001 and thereafter one of the sons initiated proceedings for partition of joint family property in the year 2002. The son claimed that the - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 daughters were not entitled to a share in the joint family as father had passed away prior to coming into force of Amendment Act. The Trial Court and High Court accepted the contention and concluded that daughters were not entitled for a share in the joint family property as a coparcener. This conclusion, in all probability, was in consonance with the dictum laid down in Phulavati’s case. Though Hon'ble Apex Court considered Phulavati's case and agreed with its findings, yet applied a different principle while granting relief to the daughters. The Hon'ble Apex Court, however, held that the partition is not complete with passing of a preliminary decree and attains finality only with passing of a final decree. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that although suit was filed in 2002, preliminary decree was passed in the year 2007 and therefore, held that daughters are entitled for the benefit of Amendment Act. 12. While holding so, the Hon'ble Apex court relied on the dictum laid down in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma vs. Chakiri Yanadi1, wherein it was held that rights of a daughter in a coparcenery property as per amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act are not lost merely because preliminary decree has been passed in a partition suit. 13. Since conflicting interpretations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court with respect to Section 6 and the judgments rendered in Phulavati's case and Danamma's case lead to several ambiguities, the Hon’ble Apex Court 1 (2011) 9 SCC 788 - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 finally gave a quietus to the rights of daughters in a coparcenery property. The question with respect to ambiguous interpretation of Section 6 was addressed to a Larger Bench as it involved similar issues with conflicting previous judgments. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra) stated the following: * The Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that it is not necessary for the daughter and the coparcener to be alive as on the date of amendment i.e 9-9-2005. By fixing a cut-off date it will defeat the purpose of amendment as the main objective behind amendment was to grant equal rights to daughters as granted to sons. Irrespective of whether the original coparcener is alive as on 9-9-2005 or not the daughter is entitled to claim an equal share in the property. * With respect to prospective and retrospective application, the Court stated that the prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment conferring/granting new rights while the retrospective statute operates backwards taking away vested rights. It stated that Section 6 would be a retroactive statute, the one that operates in futuro, its operation is based upon an event which happened in the past, the antecedent event as per Section 6 is the right being given by birth hence, it confers rights to daughters at the time of their birth even if the birth takes place prior to the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005" 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court while testing the conflicting judgments rendered in the case of Phulavati and Danamma's case, clarified at para 129 as under: “129. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under: (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act 1956 confers the status of the coparcener on the daughter born before or after the amendment made in the same manner as a son with same rights and liabilities - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with Savings as provided in Section 6 (1) as to disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition, which had taken place before 20th December 2004. (iii) Since the right of coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that father coparcenary should be living as on 09.09.2005; (iv) The statutory fiction of partition created by provisio to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 as originally created did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of the coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of ascertaining the share of deceased coparcener when he is survived by the female heir, of class I as specified in the Schedule of the Act of 1956 or the male relative of such female. The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree has been passed the daughters are to be given a share in the coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. (v) In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to Section 6 (5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognized mode of partition effected by the deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or the effected decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases, where the plea of the oral petition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of the court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly." 15. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), the controversy relating to the right of a daughter in a coparcenery property irrespective of death of a male coparcener prior to amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act is given a quietus. The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma (supra) makes 2005 Amendment retrospective and grants - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 unconditional right to the daughters as equal to that of sons in a Joint Hindu family. The Hon'ble Apex Court while over- ruling the verdict in Prakash vs. Phulavati's case, held that daughters cannot be deprived of their right to equality conferred upon them by Section 6 of Amendment Act. 16. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma, the question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the Karnataka Amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act has any relevancy and has application to the present case on hand. The status of State amendment after Central amendment was also dealt by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Sugala Bai vs. Gundappa (supra). The Coordinate Bench referring to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India, Calcutta vs. Abhijit Tea Company Private Limited2, has culled out the relevant observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 48 which reads as under: "48. But, as regards the pending proceedings are concerned, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India, Calcutta Vs. Abhijit Tea Co.Pvt.Ltd., and Ors. referred to by the learned Counsel Sri.Desai will have to be taken note of. In the said decision, the Apex Court has observed thus: It is well settled that it is the duty of a court whether it is trying original proceedings or hearing an appeal, to take notice of the change in the law affecting pending actions and to give effect to the same. If the law states that after its commencement, no suit shall be disposed of or "no decree shall be passed" or "no court shall exercise powers or jurisdiction". The Act applies even to the pending proceedings and has to be taken judicial notice by the Civil Courts." 2 JT 2000 (10) SC 125 - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 17. Therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench while examining the repugnancy of State Amendment, the Coordinate Bench has clearly held that in view of Central Amendment, the State Amendment has become repugnant. What can be gathered is that both Central and State Amendment Act is enacted under Entry V of concurrent list of Schedule VII. According to the Rule of occupied field, when two Statutes pertain to the same subject matter, but when parliament intends to make its enactment a complete code and evinces an intention to cover the entire field, the State law whether passed before or after would be overborne on the ground of repugnancy. This is so even where obedience to each of them is possible without disobeying the other. Thus, the Central Amendment can be said to have superseded the State Amendments and the amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act represents the current legal position with regard to coparcenery rights of daughters. Therefore, I am not inclined to accede to the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for appellants that even if there is a repugnancy, the same has to be presumed to be prospective in nature. Such an argument cannot be acceded to in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court examined the scope of Order XX Rule 18 of CPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that Court has always power to revise the preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the situation in the changed circumstances so demand. A suit for partition would continue after passing of - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 preliminary decree and the proceedings in the suit gets extinguished only after passing of final decree. 18. One more significant aspect dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court is that it has gone to the extent of holding that Section 97 of CPC though provides that a party aggrieved by preliminary decree, if he does not challenge, is precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal arising out of final decree, however, Hon’ble Apex Court held that does not create any hindrance or obstruction in the power of the Court to modify, amend or alter preliminary decree or pass another preliminary decree if the changed circumstances so require. 19. If Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma’s case has given a quietus to the right of a coparcener and having held that a right of a coparcener is by birth and therefore, it is not necessary that a coparcener should be living as on 09.09.2005, this Court is unable to understand as to how appellants can insist that the rights of daughters having concluded in preliminary decree cannot be modified out in a final decree proceedings. If the benefit of amended provisions of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act can be extended in a pending final decree proceedings, the theory of prospective repugnancy canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for appellants has to be outrightly rejected. It is nobody’s case that a suit filed after Karnataka amendment has stood concluded before Central Amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act was introduced in 2005. - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 20. Admittedly, final decree is drawn in 2009. If final decree is drawn in 2009, the law prevalent as on the date of passing of final decree has to be taken into consideration and therefore, the amended Section 6(A) of Karnataka State Amendment has no application to the present case on hand. If a daughter is conferred right by birth, death of a male coparcener much before commencement of amendment to Section 6 has no relevancy and therefore, both the Courts were justified in altering the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.96/1995 by extending benefit of 2005 amendment. Conclusions: 21(a) At para 129 of the judgment rendered in the case of Vineeta Sharma, the Apex Court held that provisions contained in substituted section confers status of a coparcener on the daughter born before or after the amendment made in the same manner as a son with the same rights and liabilities. The Apex Court has held that right of a coparcener is by birth and it is not necessary that father should be living as on 09.09.2005. (b) The sum and substance of the Amendment Act is existence of Hindu Undivided Family on the day of its commencement. Therefore, what can be inferred is that basic condition of application of 2005 Amendment Act is that a coparcenery must be in existence on the day when Amendment Act came into force. Sub-section (5) of Section 6 provides that Amendment Act shall not be applicable where partition is effected before 20.12.2004. It is clear that - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 the sum and substance of the Amendment Act is that Hindu Undivided Family must be in existence on the day of commencement of the Act or atleast on 20.12.2004. (c) By virtue of new provision, a daughter of a coparcener in a Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshari law now becomes a coparcener in her own right and thus enjoys equal rights to those hitherto enjoyed by a son of a coparcener. (d) As partition suit is required to be decided in stages, the same can be regarded as fully and completely decided only when the final decree is passed. If the law governing the parties is amended before conclusion of final decree proceedings, the party benefited by such amendment can make a request to the Court to take cognizance of the amendment and give effect to the same. It is well settled that the Court of first instance as well as the Appellate Court are entitled to take into consideration any change in the law. The common law Court while deciding the question whether any person is entitled to any legal character, cannot ignore pendente lite change in law. If after passing of the preliminary decree in a partition suit but before passing the final decree, the rights of the parties are altered by statutory amendment, the Court is duty bound to decide the matter and pass final decree keeping in view the changed scenario. (e) The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma (supra) has also given a quietus to the controversy relating to modification of preliminary decree and granting equal share to daughters in - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 a pending final decree proceedings even after passing of preliminary decree which is not challenged by the daughters or sisters in a partition suit. Referring to Section 97, the Apex Court has held that though final decree is to be passed in conformity with the preliminary decree but, however, that does not mean that preliminary decree cannot be altered or amended or modified by a Final Decree Court in the event of changed or supervening circumstances even if no appeal has been preferred from such preliminary decree. (f) The failure to appeal against a preliminary decree creates a bar under Section 97 of CPC from raising any objection to preliminary decree while determining the rights of the parties in a final decree proceedings. Section 97 does not lay down any judicial principle. It is a special provision framed in the interest of expediency. It therefore does not apply to the cases in the event of changed or supervening circumstances. The bar under Section 97 applies only with reference to factual correctness of preliminary decree as well as with regard to its legal validity. In view of change of law and having regard to amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, the FDP Court does not examine the validity or factual correctness of the preliminary decree but on the contrary preliminary decree is altered by taking cognizance of change in law. Therefore, Section 97 has no application while determining the shares of daughters in final decree proceedings dehors the finality given to the shares determined by the Court while passing a preliminary decree. It is true that final decree is always required to be in conformity with the preliminary decree. But that does not - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 mean that the preliminary decree before final decree is passed, cannot be altered or amended or modified by the trial Court in the event of changed or supervening circumstances, even if no appeal has been preferred from such preliminary decree. If an event transpires after the preliminary decree which necessitates a change in shares, the Court can and should do so. Therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of FDP Court to re-determine the shares even if preliminary decree passed in a partition suit has attained finality. (g) The contention of the plaintiffs that though State amendment as per Section 6(A) stands repealed in view of 2005 Central Amendment, but the said repugnancy is prospective in nature in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Padmavathi vs. Jayamma (supra) cannot be acceded to in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Danamma's Case. The Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma (supra) has held that the daughter having been conferred the status of a coparcener would acquire right by birth. The amended Section 6 has already been substituted in Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as if it was in the enactment from its inception. The repealing and amending Act, 2015, which repeals Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, in whole, does not wipe out the amendment to Section 6 from the Hindu Succession Act. The existence of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 since became superfluous and did not serve any purpose and might lead to confusion, the Parliament in its wisdom thought of repealing - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 the said amendment Act. It is only a case of legislative spring-cleaning, and not intended to make any change in law. The contention of the appellants that in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Padmavathi vs. Jayamma (supra), the married daughters cannot be treated as coparceners in terms of Sections 6(A) and 6(C) cannot be entertained in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case Ganduri Koteshwaramma (supra) and the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma as well as the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Danamma's case. (h) The Karnataka Amendment in terms of Section 6(A) has to be restricted to only those cases where suits were filed between 30.07.1994 and 08.09.2005 and are concluded on or before 2005 Amendment. After considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case (supra) and the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Padmavathi vs. Jayamma (supra), it can be safely concluded that for the cases covered under Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 from 30.07.1994 till 08.09.2005, the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 has to be applied. A partition suit does not stand concluded by passing a preliminary decree. A partition suit is required to be decided in stages and therefore, the same can be regarded as fully and completely decided only when the final decree is passed. In the present case on hand, the final decree proceedings were pending consideration and the - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 impugned judgment is rendered on 13.11.2009. Therefore, the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Padmavathi's case has no application to the present case on hand. The daughters' right in the present case on hand have to be decided in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and Vineeta Sharma. As I have rested my conclusions in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, I am of the view that it is not necessary to consider the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Padmavathi vs. Jayamma (supra) and the co-ordinate Bench in the case of H.P. Chikkarama Reddy and another (supra). 22. For the reasons stated supra, I pass the following: ORDER No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Second appeal is devoid of merits, accordingly, stands dismissed. The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of. 18.3 Insofar as the various contentions urged by the appellants, in view of the principles laid down in Vineetha Sharma’s case supra and other judgments referred to supra and having regard to the material on record which indicates that the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54385 RFA No. 2532 of 2025 2005 would apply to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, I am of the view that the various contentions urged by the appellants in this regard cannot be accepted. 18.4 Upon reconsideration, re-evaluation and re- appreciation of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse or contrary to facts or law warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly answered against the appellants. 19. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE UN/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22