LALITABEN BHANABHAI Vs. LALIBEN BHANABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 27/09/1979 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 2289 of 1975, defendant No. 1 has filed this appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 1 has filed this suit for herself and on behalf of her minor sons, plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3, for partition of properties belonging to her husband Bhanabhai Malabhai against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who are the daughters of Bhanabhai of his previous wife Kankuben. It is her say that she married the deceased on 20/05/1971 at village Sanatal, District Ahmedabad, after the death of the first wife of the deceased Bhanabhai. The first wife of deceased Bhanabhai named Kankuben expired in 1970. Lalitaben, defendant No. 1, is a daughter of Kankuben. Defendant No. 2 Shantaben and defendant No. 3 Champaben are the other two daughters of Kankuben. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor sons born out of wedlock of plaintiff No. 1 with deceased Bhanabhai. The deceased Bhanabhai was serving in Calico Mills at Ahmedabad. He has expired on 2-2-1974. The deceased had not executed any Will. The succession certificate Ex. 25 is obtained by defendant No. 1 Lalitaben by filing Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 280 of 1974 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. That application was filed for recovering following amounts : (1) Amount of provident fund with ...Rs. 15,000/- the Calico Mills, Ahmedabad. (2) Amount of gratuity with the Calico Mills, Ahmedabad. ...Rs. 8,000/- (3) Amount of deposit with the Calico Mills Co-operative Credit Society ...Rs. 1,750/- (4) Amount of contribution with the Calico Co-operative Society. ...Rs. 2,000/- -------- Rs. 26,750/- -------- The suit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is decreed by holding that respondent No. 1 was lawfully married wife of the deceased Bhanabhai Malabhai and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are sons born to her during her lawful marriage with the deceased Bhanabhai. Each plaintiff had 1/6th share in the joint properties described in paragraph 4 of the plaint along with each defendant. It was further decred that defendant No. 1 shall render the accounts of the amount recovered by her from various parties under the succession certification obtained by her and that Rs. 2,500.00 collected by plaintiff No. 1 from Gokul Co-operative Housing Society was also joint family property which was required to be partitioned between the parties.

(3.) The learned Judge arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff No. 1 Laliben was lawfully married to deceased Bhanabhai Malabhai and that plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons born to her during her lawful marriage with the deceased. For arriving at this conclusion the learned Judge has relied upon the oral evidence led by the plaintiffs. He has also relied upon the affidavit of plaintiff No. 1 which is at Ex. 47. For getting the succession certificate Ex. 25 defendant No. 1 had relied upon this affidavit wherein it is specifically mentioned that the deceased Bhanabhai was the husband of Laliben and he was father of Lalitaben and that she had no objection if the succession certificate is given to her daughter Lalitaben who was staying with her.