SMT. SAROJ M. BIJLANI Vs. CHANDRU G. BIJLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the appeal preferred by original plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 challenging the order passed on 2nd March, 2015 on the Notice of Motion No. 981 of 2014 and another Notice of Motion No.22 of 2015.

(2.) Heard rival arguments at length. Perused the impugned order dated 2nd March,2015 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. By the said order, Notice of Motion No.981 of 2014 preferred by the present appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed while Notice of Motion No.22 of 2015 filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was allowed.

(3.) Prior to appreciating the rival submissions, the case putforth in the suit filed by the present appellants/plaintiffs can be mentioned in order to ascertain the basic dispute between the appellants and the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : - The present appellants/plaintiffs filed suit No. 769 of 2007 seeking the partition of the immovable house property belonging to the HUF. The said house property is a building with ground plus three upper stories and known as 'Bijlani Bhawan' at 738, Khar Pali Road, TPS - III, Bandra, Mumbai. Without going into much details as to how the HUF was originated, suffice it to say that apparently there was HUF with the head of the family as one Diwan Tota Sing. He had three sons, Chellaram, Girdharilal and Kamal Bijlani. Sometime in the year 1958, there was an oral family partition with respect to the property of M/s Diwan Tota Sing, HUF and then it was reduced into writing in the year 1959 and registered with Sub -Registrar of Assurances at Bandra. As per said partition, the property i.e. building Bijlani Bhawan, 738, Khar Pali Road, TPS III, Bandra came to the share of the branch of M/s Girdharilal Bijlani, HUF comprising said Girdharilal and his four sons, namely, Manohar Chandru, Kumar and Gul. Out of them, Manohar is since deceased and present appellant No.1 is his widow Ladda RS 3 of 12 4 902 and 903 -APPL -240 -15 (J.doc and appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are his son and married daughter. Present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are in fact the contesting respondents in the present appeal. Respondent no.2 is wife of respondent no.1 and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of respondent No.1. It is the case of the appellants that they had purchased the undivided 1/4th share of one Kumar under the conveyance of March, 2010. According to the appellants, they have half share in the property Bijlani Bhawan and present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have 1/4th and the legal heirs of one Gul (since deceased), one of the sons of Girdharilal, had remaining 1/4th share.