SEEMA Vs. RAMESHWAR LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiff -applicant aggrieved by the order dated 30.8.2012, whereby her application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 read with Sec. 151 CPC has been rejected. Brief facts of the case are that the minor Seema filed a suit for partition against her grand father, father and uncle inter -alia with the averments that one house and a bada situated at Kuchera was ancestral property and the defendants misbehaving with her mother has turned her out of the house and now seeking to alienate the said property. It was claimed that in view of the amendment of Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('the Act') she has right in the said property by birth and, therefore, the property be partitioned by metes and bound and she may be put in possession of her portion.

(2.) ALONGWITH the suit, an application was filed seeking injunction against the defendant from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) THE learned trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to produce any document which can throw light on the ownership of the property and the basis on which, she claims the same to be ancestral property. It was further of the opinion that her father and grand father are alive and even if the property is ancestral then also only her father would get a share in the said property in terms of the Act. In the opinion of the trial Court, the applicant failed to prove any prima facie case in her favour and consequently, dismissed the said application.