KUNIARI AN v. KUMAR MALLESLI, S/U. SRISHAIL UHANDAR

Judgment

1 . : ) U ‘ 1 2 n I ’ ) U : : ) U : , , ’ : C L C . ) ’ 1 3 1 U C , 4 ) U , 3 D C — C C 1 3 ) U ) U ) U C 2 . ) U ) U ) U C C D C ) U ‘ ) U C ( : C S 9 3 ) C ) 1 1 3 — 1 3 ) - 2 2 — - : , ‘ , — C S - 1 3 ) U C C ) U C C ) C — ) C ) U 2 2 L C ) 3 ( — — , 5 L C ) U - C — C ‘ : : 2 2 , . — , : C C : 3 1 \ - ) , 1 2 2 1 3 C - 1 3 9 3 2 2 C C L C L I ) U C — 5 — C ’ : ) U — , 5 1 3 C S - C ‘ s C l D 1 3 ) U 2 ¶ ’ t C n I L C ) U C 1 3 C C ( ) , C C ( L C C L C 9 2 I ) R C L C . L L C S ’ C ) U 1 3 ) U ) U ( t j - . , 9 2 ) C L C L C I ’ d L C — ) U . 9 ) U ) U . ) U C 2 2 3 ¶ ’ C I ) U ) U ; ) U 9 3 C C 3 ) L C t C ) U C : C 1 3 ( - U 9 3 ) U 1 3 ) U C 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 9 3 ) U H 2 2 1 3 2 2 : C , - Z “ 1 3 1 3 C I 3 : ) C ‘ ) U ) U 1 3 H ) U L C L C : 3 1 ) , C D I C I L C C . 4 1 1 3 I C C C 1 3 . e L C L C 2 4 L C 5 — 1 3 — - ) U ) U ) U ) ( L C t C ) U 2 2 2 ) U . L C ) U ) U ) ) ’ C L C 1 3 — ) I , ) I h T C C C ’ D I ) C C ) 3 : D C C C ) 4 : r E ” H m 3 ) ’ C C C I ’ H ‘ q ” 3 ” 1 C “ C C C ) 4 - ’ C ) ’ C C C C C * C : t C : C C ’ 1 4 3 : h - C C C C C 3 * ( H ) c C ) 2 3 . . z : ) 1 C C , ’ , C ( . H 1 ( 3 ) 4 : C ‘ t C ) 1 ( C C ) 4 3 3 3 , C C ) C - C : H 3 3 ) C C , ’ C C h T — ) 4 ) 4 ) C t C ) C C C C ‘ ’ - C C C 1 2 1 3 ) 3 ) 3 1 3 1 ) / C ‘ C c > 4 1 — ’ c c C ) 2 3 ’ t C ’ 0 ) 3 : . H ’ ) C C C C C — ) : ’ 3 ’ ) 4 C C - H ) C C ) 4 ) 4 : 1 3 C C ) 4 ) ) 3 > C ) 3 : C C 1 H ‘ ‘ 3 1 ) 4 ‘ m 3 1 ) C C c C ( t C o m 3 - 3 3 C C C C C c . m 3 C — ) 1 C - 3 1 t C C C > - 1 3 t C C C ) C C - : C C ’ t C , r E - H C I t ? 3 : — H 1 ( 7 : ’ H ) ’ , 1 ) ’ C C 1 1 3 3 ( C I ’ ) C - 3 1 — H * 1 ) 3 : H C C t - 0 C ) C D C H - — : ’ 1 : 1 H — C C ) — a H 1 3 O C C C 3 3 2 1 ( C c 1 3 r E ’ C 3 3 ) 3 a a C C “ C C t I ’ C C H ’ o • ‘ ’ 3 3 — > , E H ) 4 ) 3 ‘ ‘ 3 2 3 C C ‘ — m ) 4 — + — ) 4 ) 4 4 H 3 ) 4 r E D C - o t C ‘ — — . 1 3 H . C ) C ’ t C m c 1 - ) 1 1 C 4 ’ H 2 H ) 4 o o C C ’ 1 ” C > C — t C — ) 4 t - C C ) C ) 4 I 3 3 1 4 ( C ‘ t C “ H : ( — > 2 J — 1 3 . C C ) r - 0 r E - ) ? 3 t C : l f • 3 2 ) 3 ) 4 ’ 3 : a 1 : ) 3 ) 3 H o 1 3 o - ) 4 3 3 t m c H C , r E m C ) ) C . H n 1 ) C3 ” 3 2 ) 4 : 1 — 1 r Z H ” H ) 4 i C C C > - : ) 4 > > 2 ) 3 H o ) 4 ‘ C C C 1 1 1 ” ) C ’ ) C 1 1 1 ‘ ? - . 2 1 ( ) C C C ’ C C 2 1 4 t ) 1 3 : 3 : C C ± 4 . H a ’ > C m c > - ) C ‘ C C 2 3 2 r E C C ‘ RFA. I 273/2000 :8:

6. On the other hand,

learned counsel respondents submitted that the provisions of I.wnctit of Ainendnient Act of Hindu Succession Act 1w inserting Section 6,\ which has come into force from 0(1.0(1.2005 cannot be taken advantage of 1w plaintiffs as succession in this case has opened in the year igo when Mallappa died and there is no doubt about the said fact and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of PREMA VS. NANJE GOWDA AND OTHERS (2011 (6) 5CC 462) and G.SEIL4R VS. GEETHA AND OTHERS (2009 (6) SCC 99j.

7. Having regard to the contentions urged. the point that arise for determination in this appeal is: ij Whether the /inclinq of’ the trial cowl that plainffs are not entitled to 1/5th shctrr in the suit schedule property as sought for in the suit and are entitled to only I/i 0” share each is justified or calls Jhr in inference in this appeal? ii) What order?