AMBICAPRASADSINH JAYRAPURAJSINH JADEJA Vs. MANOHARSINHJI PRADHUMANSINHJI JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals raise identical issues by the same appellants claiming right to interest in the property owned by late Pradyumansinhji. erstwhile Ruler of the Rajkot State though relating to the different properties. In fact, the trial Court has also decided application for temporary injunction in each of the suits by common order dated 15/09/1997. The appellant had filed Special Civil Suit No. 48 of 1997 and Regular Civil Suit No. 127 of 1997 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.). Rajkot.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that he is the grandson of late Pradyumansinhji Thakore of Rajkot. The properties held by him belong to the Hindu Undivided Family being ancestral. As the coparcener, he had l/6th share in the suit property. He, therefore, claimed partition of the entire joint family estate and also challenged certain alienations made by the defendants since the death of Pradyumansinhji who died on 9/12/1973. He had executed a will dated 30/09/1973 in respect of which a probate has been obtained by his executors who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The defendants had resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the property was not joint Hindu undivided property. The property has been retained by him under the covenant under which sovereignty of the erstwhile State of Rajkot was surrendered at the time of merger of the Indian States before the Constitution came into force and such property do not bear the character of ancestral property. It was also the case of the defendants that since under the covenant the properties were made subject to the succession, Hindu Succession will also not apply and the plaintiffs has no right, title or interest in the property.

(3.) The appellants-plaintiffs in each case also moved an application for temporary injunction Exh. 5 for interim order of maintaining status quo qua the property by the defendants. Though in the first instance, ex parte ad interim order was passed by the trial Court, by the common order dated 15/09/1997, application for temporary injunction in both the cases was rejected and the ad interim orders made earlier were vacated. Hence, these two appeals.