PUSHPA RANGDEO PATRE Vs. HIRABAI PURUSHOTTAM BORIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal a challenge is raised to the judgment and decree dtd. 28/2/2018 passed by the District Judge-10, in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2013 dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff for modification of judgment and decree of the trial Court and thereby upholding the judgment and decree dtd. 23/10/2012 passed by the Extra-Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.155 of 2007, decreeing the suit for partition, separate possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are as follows: (The parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.) The plaintiff/ appellant filed a suit for partition, separate possession and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 8 are real brothers, sisters and the defendant No.1 is mother of plaintiff. A house bearing No. 4 constructed on Nazul Sheet No.133, City Survey No.176/1, Area 500 sq.ft., situated in Ward No.48 at Nagpur is the suit property, which was originally owned by the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 8, Purushottam Borikar. He died on 17/03/2003 and after his death being legal heirs the plaintiff and the defendants became owners of the suit property. It is further pleaded that the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff and it is not yet partitioned. The plaintiff therefore, filed a suit for partition.

(3.) The defendant Nos.1,2, 3 and 5 and defendant Nos. 4, 6 7 and 8 filed their written statements vide Exh.20 and 27 respectively. The defendants have admitted their relationship with the plaintiff, however, denied that the suit property was self acquired property of their father. It is submitted that the suit property is an ancestral property and as the plaintiff got married before 22/06/1994, she is not coparcener and cannot claim any share in the suit property.