SATBIR KAUR Vs. BRIG S DEVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the following issue:

(2.) It would be appropriate here to reproduce Section 23 of the Act, which reads as under:

(3.) Ld. counsel for the defendants relies upon Nalla Venkateshwarlu vs. PorisePullamma and another, AIR 1994Andhra Pradesh 87. In that case, the deceased left two sons along with a daughter. One of the defendants, brother, was proceeded exports. The Court refused to grant partition on the ground of bar under Section 23 of the Act and on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, including mother. The facts of the instant case are totally different. In this case, mother has expired and the entire premises are not wholly occupied by the members of the family of the brothers (defendants) or sister (plaintiff) for, there are number of tenants. Therefore, this judgment is of little help to the defendants.