SURYABHAN Vs. BHAGIRATHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and decree of Special Civil Suit No.31/1999 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon and also to challenge the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No.50/2003 which was pending in the District Court Kopargaon. Respondent No.1 had filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of immovable and movable property. Half share is given to respondent, plaintiff by the Courts below. Original defendant Nos. 3,7 and 8 have challenged the decision. Both sides are heard.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that suit property was joint Hindu family property of her father Ananda and her uncle Namdeo. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is only heir left behind by Ananda. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 Namdeo is uncle of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 is wife of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.3 to 10 are the issues of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that Ananda and Namdeo each had one-half share in the suit property and after death of Ananda, plaintiff became entitled to get share of Ananda. Ananda died on 6-4-1990 at Jeur Kumbhari when he was aged about 91 to 92 years. It is contended that partition had not taken place between Ananda and Namdeo.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that Ananda used to discuss the matter of joint Hindu family property with her and he had promised that he would see that in his life time he would partition the property and he would give one-half share to the plaintiff. It is contended that when after the death of Ananda, the plaintiff asked the defendants to partition the property, defendants said that Ananda has left behind a will in their favour and she is not entitled to get anything from the suit property. It is contended by the plaintiff that if at all there is such will, that must have been obtained by fraud by the defendants as Ananda had never expressed desire to give his share to the defendants. It is contended that the defendants must have obtained signatures of Ananda by making false representation by saying that it was partition document. It is contended that the said will is void and it is not binding on her.