THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No :635 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt.Justice T. Meena Kumari) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 23.6.2010 in I.A. No. 271 of 2009 in O.S. No. 171 of 2009 on the file of the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The appellants are the plaintiffs. They filed the suit in O.S. No 171 of 2009 against the respondent herein and another defendant. In that suit, they filed I.A. No. 271 of 2009 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the plaint schedule properties. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., the appellants averred that appellants and the respondent herein are the children of late Chagarlamudi Gopala Rao and Smt. Chagarlamudi Ratna Bhushanama; that the plaint schedule properties originally belonged to Chagarlamudi Seethaiah, their paternal grand father and they are the ancestral properties of the appellants and the respondent ; that the properties fell to the share of the father of the appellants in the partition between himself and his brothers on 1.6.1955 pursuant to a partition deed; that they inherited the plaint schedule properties and other properties from their ancestors and enjoyed as joint family properties. Since their father and mother died on 15.2.1993 and 31.7.2006, they are entitled to equal shares as coparceners along with the respondent. It is further stated that the respondent paid their share of the income till 2007. However, subsequently, he sold item No.10 of the plaint schedule property to 2nd defendant without their knowledge. The respondent is intending to alienate the other plaint schedule properties so as to deprive them of their share and if he succeeds in his attempt, the appellants will sufferable loss and will be deprived of their shares. While opposing the petition, the respondent filed counter stating that his father died during his life time by executing a will dated 9.9.1985 bequeathing items 1 to 5 and part of item No.6 in his favour with absolute rights; item No.7 of the property which is mentioned as ‘B’ Schedule property in favour of his mother; item No.8 of the ‘C’ schedule property in favour of his wife Padmavathi with absolute rights and item No. 9 and part of item No. 6 of ‘D’ schedule property in favour of his mother with absolute rights in his favour and the said will is his last and final testament. He died on 15.2.1993. The respondent, his wife and his mother have succeeded to the properties as mentioned above and have been in continuous possession and enjoyment in their own right. Their names also have been mutated in the revenue records and they have been paying cist separately in their name to the Government. They also stated that pattadar passbooks have also been issued in their names individually and the appellants suppressing all these facts filed the suit. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the appellants Exs.A1 to A6 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Exs. B1 to B10 wee marked by consent. However, no oral evidence was let in by any of the parties. The trial Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, found that the petitioners failed to establish prima facie case and on that ground, it dismissed the I.A. filed for ad-interim injunction, through the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are entitled for share in the property even though the father of the appellants has bequeathed the will. Since there is no partition as such on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2005, they are entitled for a share in the property. On the other hand, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel while drawing our attention to the provisions of Sub- section 3 of Section 6(1), has contended that as the father of the appellants and the respondent died even before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 has come into force and as their father made disposition of the properties sunder Ex.B1, registered will dated 9.9.1985, the properties are already vested in favour of the respondent and as such they cannot be divested by virtue of the Amendment Act. Learned counsel, therefore contended that the appellants are not entitled for any injunction as sought for. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order of the Court below. It is necessary to extract Section 6 of the Amended Act,2005. “6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property.- (1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 , in a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,- (a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son; (b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son; (c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004 .” On a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is quite clear that the devolution of interest in coparcenary property was created to daughters on and from the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2005 subject to the proviso that the amendment shall not affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004. In the instant case, late Gopala Rao, the father of the appellants and the respondent died on 15.2.1993, i.e., even before the commencement of the Amendment Act, 2005 by making disposition of the properties under Ex.B1 registered will on 9.9.1985. Therefore, the properties are already vested in favour of the respondent. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that no injunction can be granted as prayed for by the appellants herein and the learned Senior Civil Judge rightly dismissed the I.A. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned Senior Civil Judge. However, the entitlement of the 1st appellant to the extent of her share by virtue of the Hindu Succession Act, has to be decided in the main suit. In the circumstances, it would suffice if a direction is issued to the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the main suit, O.S. No. 171 of 2009 pending on its file, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 18th August, 2010 ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J pnb