VED KUMARI Vs. TARACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition of properties and separate possession of her share of the properties left by her deceased father. In the present lAs. restraint is sought against defendants 1 to 3, who are the brothers of the plaintiff from selling, alienating, transferring in any manner or creating any third party interest in the properties set out in para 2 of the plaint.

(2.) Let me briefly recapitulate the facts:-

(3.) Learned counsel for defendants 1 to 3 submitted that the properties in question were joint Hindu Family properties and accordingly defendant No.2 way back in 1973, during the life time of the parents had sought partition thereof. It is urged that the plaintiff being the eldest child was fully aware of all the legal proceedings. The other defendants namely defendant Nos. 5,6 and 7 who had knowingly executed relinquishment deeds in 1986 are now dishonestly and out of greed seeking to resile from the same. Learned counsel also submits that the present suit has been filed belatedly. The plaintiffs do not have a prima facie case. The decree that was passed in 1973 was duly acted upon and the defendants No.1 to 3 were duly substituted in the pending litigation in respect of the properties that fell to their share.