JEHANGIRJI JAMSHEDJI Vs. NARIMAN BURJORJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a suit for partition and separate possession of a half share in the suit property. The plaintiff also claimed an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from executing a decree by darkhast No. 159 of 1944. The plaintiff also prayed for other reliefs.

(2.) The parties belong to a family of the name of Keravala. Their common ancestor was one Jamshedji who had two sons, Jehangirji and Burjorji. Jehangirji is defendant No. 1 in the suit, while plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant No. 3 are the sons of Burjorji. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1. On October 17, 1909, Jamshedji made a will of which a probate was obtained by his widow Bai Dhanbai. On December 7, 1923, a partition took place between the two branches represented by Jehangirji and Burjorji and at the partition the family property was divided. At that partition certain property which is now in dispute was kept undivided for a common passage. As a good deal of controversy turns upon the language of the partition deed in this appeal, it will, I think, be necessary to set out the terms of the deed of partition with reference to this property:

(3.) The partition has been signed by defendant No. 1, Bai Dhanbai, Bai Ratanbai, wife of Burjorji, Rustomji (defendant No. 3), Nariman (plaintiff No. 1), Erachsha (plaintiff No. 2) and Bai Dhanbai daughter of Burjorji. This was in 1923.