1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2008 (Pandurang Sakharam Kurai vs. Panchafula Shrikrishna Zodpe & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 14, 2009. Heard Shri Thakkar, learned counsel for the appellant. The contention is that as father Sakharam expired on 31.12.1991, Section 29A of Maharashtra Amendment to Hindu Succession Act, which came into force on 6.12.1994 cannot apply and daughters, therefore, are not entitled to claim share as coparceners. The appellant – original defendant No.2 claims that he is, therefore, entitled to ½ share in the property left behind. The suit for partition is filed on 2.1.1997 by daughter Panchfula. The entitlement of daughter to claim share, if section 29A amendment is held applicable, is not in dispute. The only question is whether in present facts the said amendment is applicable or not. According to the learned counsel, for this partition suit, the notional partition before 6.12.1994, as per law then prevailing is to be 2 presumed. It is to be noticed that the provisions of Section 29A are applicable and all unmarried daughters on 6.12.1994 became coparceners entitled to share if partition is taking place after amendment. Here, it is apparent that though father died on 31.12.1991, the coparcenery continued to exist and the daughter who became coparcener because of Section 29A amendment filed suit in the year 1997. In that suit while working out shares, a notional partition on the date of death of Sakharam, will have to be presumed but the same will be after treating daughter as coparcener. When the partition is being considered, the unmarried daughters have already become coparceners. Status of unmarried daughters as coparceners is applicable to all Joint Hindu Families with joint property after said date. Section 29A is not applicable only in cases where the death has taken place after 6.12.1994 and therefore, national partition has taken place after that date. The application of mind in para 19 of lower appellate judgment is legal and valid. Section 29A governs all partitions taking place after said date. I, therefore, do not find any error in the approach of courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is dismissed. Shri Thakkar, learned counsel states that 3 while issuing notice, interim order in the matter has been granted and he prays that it should be continued for a further period of six weeks. Nobody has appeared for the respondents, though they are served. In the interest of justice, interim order to continue for a further period of six weeks and shall cease to operate thereafter automatically. JUDGE *GS.