DAYA Vs. AJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RSA No. 3633 of 2006 has been filed against the judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by Umrawali and her daughters challenging the decree suffered by Deena (husband of Umrawali and brother of the remaining two plaintiffs) in favour of Kalu, the son of Umrawali and Dina.

(2.) IN the connected RSA No. 309of 2009 the daughters of aforesaid Kalu have challenged the decrees suffered by Kalu in favour of Ajit and Baljeet, two sons of a third daughter. Since the issues and the property involved overlap in both the cases, they are being disposed of by acommon judgment.

(3.) TO these cursory averments equally cursory written statement was filed to the effect that the decree did not suffer from being vitiated by fraud; that Deena was competent to suffer the decree and that the plaintiffs did not succeed to 1/4th share each. On the contrary the evidence led by the respondents was that the land was ancestral in the hands of Deena. Learned counsel has proposed as many as nine questions which are as follows :- i) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below being illegal, perverse and outcome of misreading of evidence deserve to beset aside? ii) Whether it is necessary to mention the law point and evidence in the plaint? iii) Whether the plaintiff can be non-suited by not mentioning the law laid down in 315 of Hindu Law, claiming themselves to be owner of the suit property? iv) Whether the statutory right of the plaintiffs wife and daughters of Deena under the Hindu Law can be kept in abeyance or deprived of by the Manager by giving the entire land in oral partition to his son Kalu? v) Whether in case of an oral partition, the plaintiffs being widow and daughters of Deena are also entitled to the share of the suit property in question, equivalent to the share of sons? vi) Whether Deena was competent to transfer the shares of the plaintiffs wife and daughters, in favour of his son Kalu in an oral partition and further suffering the decree in favour of Kalu? vii) Whether Kalu was competent to suffer the decree in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 when he himself could not derive the title quathe entire land? viii) Whether the plaintiffs wife and sister not a party to the alleged family settlement/oral partition nor participated therein, can be bound by the same and the impugned decree based thereon? ix) Whether the plaintiffs who were not impleaded in the suit were bound by the decree in question?