RAMANLAL Vs. HEERAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 12. 4. 1979 passed by the court of District Judge, Banswara in Civil Original Suit No. 2/76 by which the court below passed the preliminary decree and also partly allowed the counter claim of the defendant.

(2.) THE plaintiff Smt. Rukmani, mother of the appellant along with Smt. Heera Mani, Smt. Bharat Kishori, Smt. Jai Laxmi and Smt. Renuka, who are the daughters of the plaintiff No. 1 and sisters of defendant No. 1 (appellant) filed the suit for partition of the joint family property alleging that the properties described in the schedule attached to the plaint are the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. Dhoori Lal was the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of the rest of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. In the life time of Dhoorilal, the relationship between Dhoorilal and his son defendant-appellant were not good and the defendant had to leave the house. Dhoorilal died on 5. 11. 1972. Before the death of Dhoorilal, plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 married and after the death of Dhoorilal, plaintiff No. 1 got plaintiff No. 4 married on 13. 5. 1975. It is stated in the plaint that because of the immoral and terrorising activities of defendant No. 1, plaintiffs in the protection of the police have to leave the residential house of the plaintiffs in which they were residing since last 40 years and they have to take house on rent on 28. 3. 1974. THE plaintiff submitted that all the immovable properties in Schedule- `ka', `kha', `ga' and `gha' are joint family properties in the joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1. THE plaintiff requested for partition of the properties but the partition was not effected, therefore, suit for partition was filed claiming 1/3+1/18 share by plaintiff No. 1, 1/18 share each by plaintiffs No. 2, 3 and 4 and 1/18 by plaintiff No. 5 which may be separated and given to the plaintiffs and it was prayed that in case it is not possible to divide the property then they may be awarded amount in cash.

(3.) IN addition to above, the defendant specifically pleaded that one property `raman Mansion' shown in the Schedule as `ka' is the personal property of defendant No. 1 and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in this property. The defendant also denied the share as claimed by plaintiff No. 1.