HANUMANTRAO S O SHANKARRAO Vs. PUSHPABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree passed against them by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Parbhani in Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 1976 on his file and it arises out of the following facts.

(2.) So far as the parties to the suit are concerned one Shankarao is the originator of this family. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are sons of this Shankarao defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are Shankaraos daughters sons and the daughters and non respectively and the name of the daughter concerned was Rukminibai who is also dead. One Babuarao was also the son of Shankarao and Baburao died when the family was still joint. Before me both sides have made submissions on the basis that Bapurao died on 10-5-1955. Ashabai, defendant No. 3 is the widow of said Bapurao, and it is an undisputed fact that Ashabai re-married in 1965. The present plaintiff is the daughter of Ashabai and Bapurao. The plaintiff claimed that since after re-marriage of Ashabai defendant No. 3, she forfeited her rights in the family of Bapurao and, therefore, she claimed th share of Bapurao which was inherited by his widow Ashabai. Now this Shankarao died some time in 1972. The plaintiff claimed that she is heir of Shankarao and as such she gets 1/16th share in the property left by Shankar and that is why she filed this suit for partition and for separate possession, of her 5/16th share in the entire suit property consisting of some agricultural land situated at two villages.

(3.) The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the plaintiffs claim. They denied that the said property were ancestral property of Shankarao and according to them they were self acquired properties. They contended that section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is not applicable in view of the remarriage of Ashabai. According to them Bapurao had no right in the suit property and they contended further that the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are also not entitled to get share in the suit property. They contended further that the property was partitioned between themselves. They also challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try this suit and also challenged the valuation of the suit.