A father’s sale agreement binds coparcenary property only to the extent of his share.

The plaintiffs sued for partition, claiming that the suit properties were joint-family properties inherited from Chikka Veeranna.

Defendant No. 4, Kamaladevi, relied on an agreement of sale concerning Item No. 1 and on her pending specific-performance claim; the first defendant had agreed to sell that property to her.

The trial court decreed the partition suit only as to Item No. 2 and left the parties’ rights in Item No. 1 to be determined in RSA No. 352 of 2012.

On the plaintiffs’ appeal, the first appellate court decreed their suit as to Items 1 and 2, awarding each plaintiff a 1/7 share.

Defendant No. 4 challenged that decree in this second appeal.

1. Whether the first appellate court’s finding that Item No. 1 was coparcenary property was supported by the evidence on record.

2. Whether the first appellate court was justified in decreeing partition despite the pending second appeal in RSA No. 352 of 2012, without ascertaining whether the same questions were under consideration there.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, as amended in 2005, was invoked in relation to daughters’ rights in coparcenary property; the respondents also relied on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [(2020) 9 SCC 1] for that proposition.

The appeal was brought under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Court considered the substantial questions of law framed on admission.

The Court noted that the parties’ relationship and the properties’ origin in Chikka Veeranna were undisputed, and observed that the plaintiffs claimed rights as daughters under Section 6.

It also recorded that, in the specific-performance litigation concerning Item No. 1, the decree directing a sale of the first defendant’s share had been restored in RSA No. 352 of 2012.

In light of the disposal of that appeal, the Court held that the substantial questions concerning Item No. 1 and the effect of the connected appeal did not arise for consideration.

The first appellate court’s decree, including the plaintiffs’ 1/7 shares each in Items 1 and 2, therefore remained undisturbed.