LAWS(KAR)-2019-11-66

PHULAVATI Vs. PRAKASH

Decided On November 11, 2019
PHULAVATI Appellant
V/S
PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2006 by which the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred as to as 'the plaintiff') seeking the relief of partition and separate possession has been partly decreed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant No.9 has filed cross-objections. Since common question of law and facts arise for consideration, in this appeal as well as cross-objection they were heard analogously and are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The geneaology showing the relationship of the plaintiff and the defendants is as under:

(3.) Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that one Yeshwant S/o Chandranath Upadhaye was adopted by Sunanda Bai, who had lost her husband in the year 1930 and had inherited moveable and immoveable properties situate at Angol. Admittedly, the aforesaid Yeshwant died on 18.02.1988 leaving behind his widow, daughters, sons and grand-children. The eldest son of late Yeshwant namely Annasaheb died leaving behind his widow, two sons and a daughter who are arrayed as defendants No.4 to 7 in the suit. The second son namely Prakash is defendant No.1 and his two sons namely Mahaveer and Prithviraj are defendants No.2 and 3. The plaintiff and defendants No.9 to 12 are the daughter of late Yeshwant, whereas defendant No.8 is the widow of late Yeshwant who expired on 14.08.1998 after the institution of the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the death of late Yeshwant, the suit schedule properties, the particulars of which have been described in Schedule 'A' to Schedule 'G' annexed to the plaintiff devolved on the plaintiff and the defendants. It was pleaded that the aforesaid properties are being held jointly by the plaintiff and the defendants and there has been no partition. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has got 1/7th share in the schedule properties, whereas defendants No.1 to 3 together have got 1/7th share each in all the suit schedule properties except the property bearing CTS No.3421 mentioned in Schedule 'A' in which the plaintiff has got 1/28th share. It was also pleaded that the aforesaid property was jointly purchased by defendants No.13 to 15 and late Yeshwant Upadhaye by a registered sale deed dated 22.05.1995 and defendants No.13 to 15 have got 1/4th share each and late Yeshwant Upadhye has got 1/4th share. Thus, the plaintiff has got 1/28th share in CTS No.3241.