22. With the provision of Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended and also in the light of the State Amendment effected, the facts of the present case are looked into admittedly Ex.D.10 i.e., registered partition came into existence on 28.7.2005 i.e., much subsequent to date fixed under amended Hindu Succession Act. As per the provisions of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters are the coparceners and they are entitled for equal share as that of the son. In the present case also, as on the date of execution of Ex.D.10, the plaintiffs being daughters of Ramisiddegowdara Siddaiah became coparceners along with his sons and they are entitled for equal share in the joint family property. In the light of the contents of Ex.D.10, it is clear that till 27.8.2005, there was a joint family and the property was joint family property. Admittedly the plaintiffs were not parties to the said partition deed and no property was allotted to them. Since the plaintiffs are not party to the said partition deed, and since no property was allotted to them, the question of applying the said documents against the plaintiffs does not arise and definitely the said partition deed will not effect the right of the plaintiffs in any manner. When Ex.D.10 goes out of field, definitely the suit schedule property becomes joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6 as contended by the plaintiffs.
