HIRASINGH SADARSING PARMAR Vs. RAMKUWARBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff who lost in the first appellate court.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under - One Smt.Kesarbai was owner of the suit property. She died in the year 1955. She left behind her, plaintiff Hirasingh and two daughters namely; Durgabai and Ratnabai. Upon death of Kesarbai, it is alleged that the plaintiff and the two daughters became the owners of the suit property. They have decided to partition the said property. The two daughters namely; Durgabai and Ratnabai authorised present plaintiff Hirasingh to institute a suit on their behalf. The defendant is occupying the suit house even though she has no right whatsoever. She did not vacate the suit house inspite of the notice. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit. She denies that Kesarbai was the owner of the suit property. On the other hand, she submits that she is the step-mother of the plaintiff being widow of Sardarsingh. She contends that she was married to Sardarsingh after death of plaintiff's mother. The property belonged to Sardarsingh. He had purchased it in the name of first wife Benami. She, therefore, submits that she has, as a widow, every interest in the suit property. She also contended that Sardarsingh before his death had executed a Will bequeathing the suit property in favour of the defendant. The defendant amended the written statement and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is bad in law, in as much as, the plaintiff has failed to make the daughters of Kesarbai parties to the suit. It is submitted by the defendant that if the property was received by Kesarbai from her paternal aunt then it becomes 'Stridhana' and this Stridhana devolves upon the daughters only. She submits that since daughters have not instituted the suit, the suit is bad.