J.S. Khehar JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The question that arises in this appeal, by special leave, is: whether the benefits of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 are available to the Appellants.
3. The Appellants and the Respondents are siblings being daughters and sons of Chakiri Venkata Swamy. The 1st Respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit for partition in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Ongole impleading his father Chakiri Venkata Swamy (1st Defendant), his brother Chakiri Anji Babu (2nd Defendant) and his two sisters - the present Appellants - as 3rd and 4th Defendant respectively. In respect of schedule properties 'A', 'C' and 'D' - coparcenary property - the Plaintiff claimed that he, 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant have 1/3rd share each. As regards schedule property 'B'-as the property belonged to his mother-he claimed that all the parties have 1/5th equal share.
4. The 1st Defendant died in 1993 during the pendency of the suit.
5. The trial court vide its judgment and preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 declared that Plaintiff was entitled to 1/3rd share in the schedule 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties and further entitled to 1/4th share in the 1/3rd share left by the 1st Defendant. As regards schedule property 'B' the Plaintiff was declared to be entitled to 1/5th share. The controversy in the present appeal does not relate to schedule 'B' property and is confined to schedule 'A', 'C' and 'D' properties. The trial court ordered for separate enquiry as regards mesne profits.
6. The above preliminary decree was amended on September 27, 2003 declaring that Plaintiff was entitled to equal share along with 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendant in 1/5th share left by the 1st Defendant in schedule property 'B'.
7. In furtherance of the preliminary decree dated March 19, 1999 and the amended preliminary decree dated September 27, 2003, the Plaintiff made two applications before the trial court (i) for passing the final decree in terms thereof; and (ii) for determination of mesne profits. The trial court appointed the Commissioner for division of the schedule property and in that regard directed him to submit his report. The Commissioner submitted his report.
8. In the course of consideration of the report submitted by the Commissioner and before passing of the final decree, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (for short, '2005 Amendment Act') came into force on September 9, 2005. By 2005 Amendment Act, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short '1956 Act') was substituted. Having regard to 2005 Amendment Act which we shall refer to appropriately at a later stage, the present Appellants (3rd and 4th Defendant) made an application for passing the preliminary decree in their favour for partition of schedule properties 'A', 'C' and 'D' into four equal shares; allot one share to each of them by metes and bounds and for delivery of possession.
9. The application made by 3rd and 4th Defendant was contested by the Plaintiff. Insofar as 2nd Defendant is concerned he admitted tha........