JAYARAM GOVIND BHALERAO Vs. JAYWANT BALKRISHNA DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal against rejection of the application made by the present applicant for being impleaded as legal heir of deceased appellant in Civil Appeal No.113 of 2000.

(2.) To state in brief, deceased Sitabai had filed the Special Civil Suit No.161 of 1995 for partition and separate possession in the suit properties shown in Schedules "A", "B" and "C" in the plaint. According to her, the property was the joint family ancestral property. According to her, her father-in-law Parshuram had two sons - Narayan and Balkrishna. The plaintiff was married to Narayan in 1938. Narayan died in the year 1942 during the lifetime of his father. Parshuram died in 1945. The name of Narayan, the husband of Sitabai, was never entered in the Record of Rights pertaining to the Joint Hindu Family property. After the death of Parshuram, name of his son Balkrishna was entered in the Record of Rights as per the prevailing custom. As Balkrishna was minor, his mother was shown as guardian in the record of rights. According to Sitabai, no partition had taken place in the lifetime of her father-in-law and also during the lifetime of her brother-in-law Balkrishna. Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 are the legal heirs of Balkrishna. Some of the properties which were shown in Schedule "A" were acquired by the Government for the purpose of CIDCO and compensation for the same was accepted by Balkrishna. An amount of Rs.5,000/- was deposited in the joint names of Sitabai and respondent No.1 - Jaywant. The suit came to be decreed in respect of the properties shown in Schedules "B" and "C", but to the extent of the properties shown in Schedule "A", the suit of sitabai was dismissed on the ground that the property was no more in possession of the joint family. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit to that extent, Sitabai had filed Civil Appeal No.113 of 2000. Pending that Appeal, Sitabai died and the present appellant Jayaram, who claims to be the brother of the deceased Sitabai, moved an application before the appellate Court to implead him as the legal heir of deceased Sitabai on the ground that she had executed a Will and had bequeathed her property in favour of the appellant. According to him, That Will was also duly registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar.

(3.) The application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the same was forged and not genuine and that Sitabai did not have right to bequeath the property.