date of birth of the daughters. There is no disqualification to claim share in the properties. Subsequently as per the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, whether the father of the party is alive or dead, is not relevant in a suit for partition filed by the Hindu woman. In the light of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by the Parliament in 2005, the claim of the Defendants 1 to 4 has to be rejected straight away. Further, the claim of oral partition is always a subject of contest in a Court of law, it is hard to establish. Here, the daughters have come forward claiming partition. The mother claims that there was an oral partition. If there had been oral partition, she should have clearly stated what are all the properties allotted to the sons, the Plaintiff-1 and the Defendants 2 to 4. She was unable to state clearly the share of each of the sons and her own share. Under those circumstances, the claim made by the Defendant-4 in the written statement which he claims that the other Defendants 1 to 3 adopted the same, is only to deny the rightful claim of the Plaintiffs. The learned Judge, on proper consideration of the law as prevailing as on the date of the judgment, had properly applied the law to the facts of the case and had granted 1/10 share to each of the Plaintiffs and Defendants granting preliminary decree. The Defendant-4 cannot have any
