As per the case facts, the appeals concern a partition suit initiated decades ago. The High Court affirmed the trial court's partition decree and also allowed cross-objections, setting aside a ... compromise between two defendants regarding their shares in the property. The question arose regarding the shares of the daughters in the ancestral and self-acquired properties, and the validity of the settlement between certain defendants. Finally, the Supreme Court modified the preliminary decree, stating that daughters are entitled to a one-third share in all ancestral and self-acquired properties mentioned in the plaint. The Court also held that the settlement between Original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was not in accordance with the law, meaning the appellants would not be entitled to the share of Original Defendant No. 2. The appellants are only entitled to their one-third share in the suit properties. The Trial Court was directed to modify the decree accordingly and draw the final decree within a short period due to the prolonged litigation.