MOHD. SIRAJUDDIN Vs. PARIBEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal Suit has been filed under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') by the appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dtd. 29/12/2008 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants herein for partition and separate possession, was dismissed.

(2.) The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit and they will be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court in the suit for the sake of convenience.

(3.) As could be seen from the material available on record including the impugned Judgment, it manifests that the plaintiffs are the sons of the first wife of defendant No.2, whereas while defendant No.1 and her husband Yaseen are grandparents of the plaintiffs. They stated that defendant No.2 developed illicit intimacy with defendant No.4 and begot two children and also willfully deserted the plaintiffs and their mother about 5 years back. From then onwards, they along with their mother have been residing separately at Jagitial. Prior to that they lived in a joint family property left behind by their grandfather bearing Municipal No.5/6/97 (Old 4/3/78) situated at Jagtial, originally which stands in his name and after his demise it was nominally mutated in the name of defendant No.4. They also stated that their father- defendant No.2 constructed a house at Karimnagar bearing Municipal No.6/1/56 with joint family funds, but it was kept in the name of defendant No.4 to deprive their rights. As such, they are entitled to claim share as per Mohammedian Law. They stated that defendant No.2, who is the father of plaintiffs, after deducting 1/8th share to defendant No.1 is entitled to claim 7/16th, share out of which plaintiffs are entitled to get 7/48th share each and remaining 7/48th share to be claimed by defendant No.2. Plaintiffs demanded for partition on 1/8/2003, but defendant No.2 refused the same with an intention to deprive their statutory rights and therefore, they constrained to file the suit for partition. The scheduled properties mentioned under item Nos.1 and 2 are ancestral properties.