TULSABAI Vs. INDUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the orders dated 7-11-1984 and 4-7-1985 passed by the learned C. J. J. D. , Shevgaon in R. C. S. No. 202 of 1979. By the first order, the trial Court has rejected the application for amendment and by the latter order, has rejected the application for production of the document filed by the petitioner.

(3.) THE facts in brief, relevant for the decision are that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed suit for partition of the said property. The defendant No. 1 by name Laxman who was husband of the petitioner and father of the respondents No. 4 and 5 contested the suit on the ground that the property in question is not an ancestral property but is self acquired property and cannot be subjected to partition. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 1 Laxman expired. The defendant No. 3 was also subsequently transposed as the plaintiff No. 3 as she had agreed for the relief prayed for in the suit by the plaintiffs. Subsequent to the death of the defendant No. 1, the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are the defendant No. 2, 4 and 5 respectively in the suit, filed two applications, one for amendment of the written statement and another for productions of the document. Application for amendment was to the effect that during the life time Laxman defendant No. 1 had executed Will dated 30-7-1982 on and that, he expired on 30-9-1982. By virtue of the said Will, the ownership rights of the deceased Laxman stood bequeathed in favour of the petitioner and the respondents No. 4 and 5 and these facts having not brought on record, were sought to be brought on record in the form of additional pleadings by amending the written statement. Simultaneously the application was filed seeking leave to rely upon and produce the Will dated 30-7-1982 record by the petitioner and the said respondents. Both the said applications were objected by the plaintiffs and were rejected by the impugned order. The rejection was on the ground that there was delay in approaching the Court with the pleadings in question and that, the said pleadings are inconsistent to the original plea raised by the defendant in their written statement.