LATIKA Vs. INDUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal by a defendant who lost in both the courts below.

(2.) Facts are as follows-

(3.) The plaintiff and the defendant are the real sisters. One Laxman Shrawanji Kayarkar is their grand-father i.e. their mother's father. He was the owner of the house situated in ward No. 4 at Kelzar. Said Laxman died on 1/7/1989 leaving behind him the plaintiff and the defendant as the only heirs and the suit property. Since the plaintiff and the defendant are the only heirs, the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff and defendant became the co-owners of the property left behind by Laxman. The defendant, who is sister of the plaintiff started living in the part of the house. After the death of said Laxman, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to divide the said house and memorandum of partition was executed on 24/5/1990. According to the plaintiff, the western portion fell to the share of the plaintiff while Eastern portion fell to the share of the defendant. Although the Western portion fell to the share of the plaintiff and Eastern portion fell to the share of the defendant, there is no dividing wall between the two houses. The plaintiff, therefore, has an apprehension in the mind that the defendant may interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the western portion. The plaintiff, therefore, wanted to construct the said wall dividing the said house. When they started the construction, the defendant obstructed. Hence, the suit.