KUSUM WALIA Vs. TARAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal preferred by trie appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addi. District Judge, Patiala dated 28.10.1996. The plaintiff and the defendants are the legal representatives of deceased Ram Sarup Walia who died on 19.5.1977. According to the plaintiffs they have 4/7th share in the estate left by the deceased Ram Sarup Walia and the remaining 3/7th share into the share of defendants in the suit. Deceased Ram Sarup' Walia was the owner of the building, some movable properties and various other properties as detailed in the plaint. The plaintiffs in the suit claimed that they were not being permitted to enjoy the benefit in the immovable and movable assets left by the deceased even to the extent of their share in the properties left by the deceased. Resultantly, they filed suit for partition. The suit was contested by the defendants and more particularly defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 who filed a joint written statement. The basic objection which was taken in the written statement was that the plaintiffs have no right of succession. Being a female, plaintiffappellant Kusum Walia cannot seek partition. On merits it was contested that the assets of Ram Sarup Walia, HUF were fully settled when the partnership was dissolved and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in all was paid on 24.1.1978 with regard to the affairs of the partnership. Main objection on behalf of the defendants which was taken up was that the property in dispute is a residential and dwelling house and as such the plaintiffs have got no right to file the suit for partition.

(2.) Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and various preliminary objections raised, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) The learned trial Court decided issues No. 1 to 3, the onus of which was on the plaintiffs, against the plaintiffs, while Issue Nos. 4 to 8, the onus, of which was on the defendant, were decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff Issue Nos. 9 and 10 both were decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. As a result of these findings the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on 31.7.1989 against which the appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs. This appeal of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.10.1996.