PADMINIBAI Vs. ARVIND PURANDHAR MURABATTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 2. We will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the Trial Court.

(2.) Plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant and mother of defendants-2 and 3. She brought the suit, claiming her share alleging that the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties; that she is entitled to a share and that the partition claimed to have taken place in the year 1960 excluding her was not binding on her. Therefore, she prayed for a decree or'partition of all properties by metes and bounds. She also prayed for an injunction against creditors, namely, defendants-4 to 20 who had obtained decrees against the joint family properties. Defendants resisted the suit. Soon after the suit was filed, defendants-1 and 2 died and their legal representatives were brought on record. In that circumstance defendants 2A and 2E appeared through their counsel and filed a joint written statement in which they admitted that plaintiff was the wife of defendant-1 and mother of defendants-2 and 3, and they were members of the joint Hindu Family and defendants 2A and 2E have shares in 'C' schedule properties as the members of the joint family. They however contended that plaintiff was not entitled to the relief to the extent of her share as claimed in the suit. They admitted that the decree obtained by other defendants except defendants-1 to 3 are not binding on them or their share in the suit properties and those decrees cannot be executed against their shares unless and until shares of plaintiff and defendants are determined finally. In other words the written statement was more or less in total support of the plaint allegations. Defendant No. 28 appeared through his advocate and filed his written statement which was not dis-similar to the one filed by defendants 2A and 2E. Defendant-4 also appeared by advocate and filed her written statement. She contended that the suit was false, collusive and vexatious and without any cause of action. The version put forward by plaintiff that she is not bound by the decree obtained by defendant-4 against the firm in original suit No 17/1965 was not binding on her etc. was denied. Defendant-17 died during the pendency of the suit, defendants 17A to 17H were brought on record as his L.Rs. as per the order passed on lA-No. 1 2. Defendant No. 6 died dur.ing the pendency of the suit and his L.Rs. were brought on record as defendants 6A to 6H. As per the joint memo filed, the suit of the plaintiff as against defendant-5, 6A to 6H, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17A to 17H and 18 to 21 was dismissed as settled out of court. Therefore the written statement filed by defendants, 5, 6A to 6H, 7, 8,15,16,17A to 17H and 18 was not relied upon by the trial court. We do not think it necessary to advert to the stand taken by the other defendants.

(3.) On the pleadings as many as 8 issues were framed and they are as under :-