SHIVPRASAD Vs. APARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S. No. 468/2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), are impugning the judgment and decree dtd. 28/6/2013 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff with costs, declaring that plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit house property and also in the gratuity and provident fund left behind by late Sri Prakash Sabnis.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff nos.1 and 2 filed the O.S. No. 468/2006 against defendant nos.1 to 6 seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule properties by allotting their 1/3rd share by metes and bounds. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the house property bearing No. 14 in R.S. No. 678/1/2/3 situated at Subhashchandra Nagar, Angol, Belgaum and the amount of Rs.11,26,264.84 which is in Maharashtra Bank, Tilakwadi branch, Belgaum, were the properties of Prakash Sabnis who is the propositor of the family of plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the propositor Prakash Sabnis, while plaintiff No.2 is her daughter. Later the said Prakash Sabnis married another lady during the subsistence of the first marriage and begotten defendant nos.1 to 4 through the second wife. The propositor Prakash Sabnis died on 15/12/2005, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 4 as his legal heirs. The house in question was constructed by him and he is the absolute owner of the properties. The deceased was an employee of Maharashtra Bank and was working as a Cashier in Tilakwadi branch at the time of his death. He opted for his terminal benefits. He was having the account and the fixed deposits in the said bank. Defendant nos.5 and 6 were not ready to furnish the details of the amount in the account of deceased Prakash Sabnis. Therefore, they are also arrayed as defendants.

(3.) Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed their written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The description of the properties in the plaint are also denied. It is contended that late Prakash Sabnis was never the owner of the property at any point of time. The description of the property described in para no. 1(b) is vague and the same cannot be taken into consideration. The marriage of Prakash Sabnis with plaintiff No.1 and that he begotten the plaintiff No.2 are denied. It is contended that late Prakash Sabnis never constructed any house as contended by the plaintiff and therefore there is no question of the plaintiffs inheriting the same. It is admitted that Prakash Sabnis was working as Cashier in Maharashtra Bank, Belgaum but denied the other contention of the plaintiffs. It is also denied that plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property. It is stated that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file and maintain the suit. It is contended that Prakash Sabnis died on 11/12/2005. He had executed the Will dtd. 10/1/2005 bequeathing the house he had constructed by availing loan from his bank in favour of his wife Shubhangi during her lifetime and thereafter to the absolute share of defendant nos.1 and 2. It is defendant No.1 alone who is entitled for the gratuity and Provident Fund as per the recitals found in the Will. Therefore, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.