(Amendment) Act, 2005 the father and the daughter both should be alive as on the date of the commencement of the Act as on 9.9.2005 and since the plaintiff, the petitioner herein alleges that she is the daughter of defendant no.1, who is still alive, the amended provision would apply to the facts of this case, in case if the plaintiff is able to prove her relationship with defendant no.1, which is said to have been disputed. It is the claim in the plaint that defendants 1 to 2 have effected partition as early as in the year 1998. It is evident that she would not be entitled to equal share in the coparcenery property by seeking reopening of the property, which has been effected before 20.12.2004 and there is a registered partition deed or a decree of the court. Therefore, she could not claim a share in the suit properties by reopening the properties. However, she could claim as a coparcener along with her father in his branch and she is not precluded from doing so. Hence, it is open for the petitioner to file a fresh suit seeking partition of the share that has fallen to her father or wait her father’s death for succession to open and even seek her share of the properties as of right.
