SHOBHA Vs. P.N.SHYLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

(2.) This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The suit was filed by the two children of Nanaiah and made other children of their uncle Chengappa and P.M. Ponnappa. The claim is made of 1/3rd share from defendant No.1 i.e., their sister and sister who has been examined before the Trial Court as DW1 categorically admitted that after the death of their father, there was no any partition and father left his mother, herself and also the plaintiffs and also categorically admits that there was no any division among themselves and also categorically admitted that in Ex.P17, categorically stated that she has no any objection to partition the property and also categorically admitted that they are in joint possession of the property and till date, no division was taken place. Having taken note of this admission, the Trial Court considering the material and record in paragraph 20 held that there is an admission that the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 died on 8/3/2005 and also taken note of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 which came into force with effect from 9/9/2005 and considering the material and record particularly, the admission, the Trial Court granted 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs and also defendant No.1 and in respect of mean profits, the Trial Court held that there must be an enquiry to that effect in a separate proceeding. The said judgment and decree is challenged before the First Appellate Court.

(3.) The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal and also hearing both the parties, formulated the point and having reassessed the material available on record and relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 in the case of VINEETA SHARMA vs RAKESH SHARMA AND OTHERS comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 being children of Nanaiah are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule properties and held that the findings of Trial Court are based on sound principle of law and confirmed the same.