LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-71

JAYWANTHI K. KAPADIA Vs. DHANSUKHLAL VENILAL

Decided On February 16, 2021
Jaywanthi K. Kapadia Appellant
V/S
Dhansukhlal Venilal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.7122/2006 on the file of the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of her legitimate share is dismissed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff namely Smt. Jaywanthi K.Kapadia and defendant Nos.1 to 8 are legal heirs of one A.Venilal. The plaintiff has specifically contended that she along with defendants constituted a undivided Hindu Joint Family. It is contended that plaintiff's father namely A.Venilal died on 23.04.1999 leaving behind plaintiff and defendants as legal heirs. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that her father Venilal was one of the son of propositus Ambaram Fakir Bhai, who died intestate on 04.12.1959. It is contended that plaintiff's father namely A.Venilal along with his brothers entered into a deed of settlement on 14.02.1951 and in the said settlement, the schedule 'A' properties were allotted to plaintiff's father share. At para 7 of the plaint, it is also contended that one Smt. Vichkore Ben, who is none other than sister of Venilal filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.6/1960 (renumbered as O.S.No.22/1960) which ended in compromise. It is also stated at para 7 of the plaint that plaintiff's paternal aunt namely Smt.Vichkore Ben relinquished her share by receiving a sum of Rs.70,000/- and in the above said suit, the father of the plaintiff namely Venilal and his three brothers were jointly allotted 5/28th share in the properties which were the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.6/1960 (renumbered as O.S.No.22/1960). On these set of pleadings, the plaintiff specifically contended that schedule 'B' properties which were the subject matter of O.S.No.6/1960 are also joint family ancestral properties.