SHANTARAM TUKARAN PATIL Vs. DAGUBAI TUKARAM PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in this appeal were defendants 1 and 2 in Speical Civil Suit NO.30 of 1979 which was filed by respondents 1 to 4 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Diuvion , at Dhule . For the sake of convenience, the parties will be refrerred to as the "plaintiff" and the "defendat". In orderto understand the nature of the suit it is necessary to mention the relationship between the parties.

(2.) ONE Tukaran had been married to Dagubai, which is plaintiff 1 She has three daughter from Tukaram. They are plaintiff 2, 3 and 4. During the subsistience of his maraige with Dagubai, Tukaram marreid LIlabia, who is defendant 2, sometime in the yesr 1976. From her he got a son, shantaram, whi is defendant 1. Tukaram died in JUne, 1978. The plaintiff field the suit against the defendant who were in possession of several propertis which had been left by tukaram. The suit ws, in particular , for a declaraation that the defendant were not the legal heirs of Tukaram, that they had no right, title or ..Since the plaintiff who were four in number, were entitled to succeed to the estate of Tukaram, they also pryaed for partition and possession of the properties to the extent of 1|4 share toeach of them. In the alternative they prayed that in cse it was held that the first defendant had ashare in the properties then the Court should determine the shares and peartition the properties and give the same in the resepctive possession of the parties. The main thrust to of the plaintiff, therefor in the suit was that the defendant were not the legal heris of Tukaram during the subsistence of the latters valid marriage with the first plaintiff.

(3.) THE defendants ressted the suit by contending that plaintiff 1, namely Dagubai, had been divorced by Tukaram as per the custom governing the community to which the parties belonged and it was thereafter that Tukaram maraie with defendant 2 took place. Hence the marriage between defendant 2 and Tukaram was valid and therefore the defendat were the heris of Tukaram.