CHANDRABHAGABAI Vs. INDU NAMDEO LANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of a suit for partition and separate possession and an application seeking a probate in respect of the Will of Chandrabhagabai.

(2.) THE following genealogy will explain the relationship between the parties :<IMG>33.jpg</IMG> Properties A and B were ancestral in the hands of Mahadu, the other shares of that property being his brother Kisan. Kisan and Mahadu were separate. Property C is a self acquisition of Mahadu. After the passing away of Namdeo, Chandrabhagabai filed a suit against her daughters-in-law alleging that they were enjoying the suit properties to her to exclusion and that she had a 1/3rd share in properties A and B and a 2/3rd share in property C. She wanted her share to be separated and she placed in possession of the separated share. The daughters in-law Indu and Yamuna, denied that Chandrabhagabai had the share she was ascribing to herself. She was not entitled to any share inasmuch as her right to claim such a partition stood extinguished with the passing away of Namdeo. Jijabai who is joined as respondent No. 3 claimed a 1/9th share in properties A and B and a 1/3rd share in property C. Certain issues were raised and the trial Court passed a decree reading as follows :

(3.) HAVING heard Counsel in all the three appeals the following points arise for determination :