JASODA BAI AND ORS. Vs. HARIBHALLABHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants who were not parties to the suit after obtaining necessary permission from the court as per the order dated 18.7.2011.

(3.) HAVING regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and to the documents on record, it transpires that the suit was filed by the present respondents No. 1 to 6 (original -plaintiffs) against respondent No. 7 (original -defendant) seeking partition of the suit property. Present respondents No. 1 to 5 and respondent No. 7 are sons of respondent No. 6 Heeralal and present appellants are the daughters of said respondent No. 6 Heeralal. It was contended by the plaintiffs in the suit that the property in question was a joint family property and therefore the same deserved to be partitioned. The trial court after considering the evidence on record held that the suit property was self acquired property of respondent No. 7 (defendant) and therefore dismissed the suit. None of the plaintiffs i.e present respondents No. 1 to 6 have challenged any of the findings recorded by the trial court by filing the appeal. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants who were not the plaintiffs in the suit on the ground that they were daughters of respondent No. 6 Heeralal and had share in the suit property. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the said finding that the property in question was the self acquired property of respondent No. 7 (defendant), will not come in the way of appellants as the suit property was a joint family property of Heeralal and self acquired property of respondent No. 7 -Bhanwarlal.