VANITABEN BHAISHANKER PANDYA Vs. DIVALIBEN PREMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal and the cross-objections filed therein arise out of the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rajkot in Special Civil Suit No. 65 of 1971. The appellant is the original plaintiff and she is a married daughter of deceased Bhaishanker Odhavji Pandya who died intestate on 4th October 1969 at Rajkot. The respondents are the original defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the widow of the deceased. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons and defendants Nos. 4 5 and 6 are his daughters.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the properties mentioned in Schedules A and B attached to the plaint. The property mentioned in Schedule A is a house called Pandit Niwas situated in the area called Prahlad Plot at Rajkot valued at Rs. 40 0 by the plaintiff. The property mentioned in Schedule B consists of cash amounts alleged to have been deposited in two Banks at Rajkot and certain amount alleged to be in the postal savings bank account at Rajkot as also gold and silver ornaments cash at hand amounting to Rs. 2 0 and other movable articles. It was the plaintiffs case that the plot of land on which the house was later constructed was purchased by the deceased in the name of defendant No. 1 by his own moneys and he later got the house constructed thereon also at his expense. The cash and other movables also belonged to the deceased. The plaintiff therefore claimed 1/7th share in the said properties. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(3.) Mr. Suresh M. Shah the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the lower court erred in holding that the house belonged to defendant No. 1 inspite of the finding by that court that initially the land was purchased as well as construction put up thereon by the funds contributed by the husband. Mr. Shahs contention is that unless it is shown by defendant No. 1 that the land was purchased by her own earnings and that the cost of construction also was meet from her exclusive funds it cannot be held that the house belongs to her and the learned Judge therefore erred in not holding that the house was the property of the husband left behind him to be inherited by his heirs including the plaintiff who had 1/7th share therein and that she was therefore entitled to partition. ... ... ... ... ... .. ..