D.T.RAJKAPOOR SAH Vs. KAMAKSHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kamakshi Bai, Ambu Bai, Muniyamma Bai, Kuppamma Bai @ Kuchala Kumari, four sisters filed the present suit for partition for partitioning the suit property and allotment of 4/7 shares to them against their brothers D.T.Rajkapoor Sah @ Raghul Sah, D.T.Loku Sah and D.T.Rukma Sah.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that one Ellu Sah is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He had three sons namely, Thulasi Sah, Gopal Sah and Kuppa Sah. The above said father and three sons started Shellac vending business and out of the income, three properties were purchased which includes the suit property. On 7/3/1964, by a registered partition deed, the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Thulasi Sah, the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The said partition deed, dtd. 7/3/1964 wrongly describes as if the suit property is an ancestral property. Therefore, the suit property, in the hands of Thulasi Sah is to be treated as his separate property. The said Thulasi Sah died intestate on 30/5/2000 leaving behind him, the plaintiffs and the defendants as his legal heirs. The above said registered partition deed, which was of the year 1964, was unskillfully drafted whereby it includes the names of the defendants also along with the father of Thulasi Sah as if they are representing a branch. Therefore, the property is the absolute property of Thulasi Sah and after his death, is liable for partition among all the seven legal heirs. The plaintiffs, therefore, called upon the defendants by legal notice, dtd. 30/10/2013 to effect peaceful partition. However, the defendants did not come forward to partition the property, but, sent a reply notice, dtd. 30/11/2013 with untenable allegations. Even when the plaintiffs attempted to approach the defendants through panchayatdars, they declined and hence the suit.

(3.) The case of the defendants is that the suit property was allotted to the father of Thulasi Sah and the defendants. The suit property was purchased seven decades ago by the grandfather, late Ellu Sah and therefore has the status of ancestral property. Therefore, on the date when the partition was effected, women were not entitled to inherit the ancestral property of the joint family. The present suit is initiated only with a malafide intention of harassing the defendants.