Defendants' challenge to a partition decree fails. Plaintiffs — daughters and granddaughters (through predeceased daughters) of propositus Fakirappa Ramappa Dandappanavar (d. 04.10.1973) — had sought partition of ancestral joint family properties in O.S. No. 12/2011; contesting defendant No.7 (whose written statement was adopted by defendants 1–6 and 8–13) pleaded that daughters born before 1952 had no share and cited a 1947 Toravati Patra mortgage. The First Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Hubballi decreed the suit on 23.06.2017. In this RFA decided by Umesh M Adiga, J.: (i) since the suit was filed in 2011, after the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, and the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (AIR 2020 SC 3137) held the amended Act has retrospective effect enforceable from the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, daughters are coparceners entitled to shares as that of a son — the defendants' only contention was 'not tenable'; Question No.1 answered in the negative with no illegality found in the trial court's decree; (ii) on Question No.2, I.A. No. 1/2025 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking admission of certified copies of revenue records said to evidence a 1978 oral partition and 27.02.1980 relinquishment statements by the daughters before revenue authorities (admittedly unregistered) was rejected: the public documents could have been obtained during the suit's six-year pendency (evidence from 17.02.2014; disposal noted 21.06.2017), the claim that a deceased uncle's widow/aunt kept the documents was 'not believable', the 1978/1980 pleas appeared nowhere in the written statements, and a new case cannot be made at the appellate stage — evidence without pleading being of no use; the guideline in Gabriel Bhaskarappa Kuri (ILR 2007 KAR 773) did not come to the appellants' rescue. Appeal dismissed; the 23.06.2017 judgment and decree confirmed; I.A. dismissed; original records to be sent back to the trial court and decree drawn accordingly.
