Subhagwati was also number given her due share of joint family properties.
It was said that the deed Ex.
D 4 dated December 27, 1943.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 8, 1963 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in second appeals Nos.
Jampalhin, the mother of respondents 1 and 3 died before Dharam Singh married appellant number 2.
1 Dfdt.
Appellants 1 and 2 instituted C.S. number 43 A of 1956 in the companyrt of the Civil Judge, First Class, Raigrah claiming that they were entitled to 1/4 th share each of Dharam Singhs estate and there should be partition by metes and bounds of the joint family proper ties.
Subhagwati, the appellants were number entitled to reopen the partition because Mst.
The suit was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the parties were bound by the deed of partition, Ex.
It was alleged that Mst.
The appellants preferred a Second Appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which dismissed the Second Appeal.
Subhagwati Plff.
The appellants took the matter in appeal to the District Judge of Raigarh but the appeal was dismissed.
3 Etwar Singh Chandra Bhusan Singh Dfdt.
749 and 750 of 1965.
Appellant number 2 Mst.
Subhagwati was companypelled by Hemkumar under threat of violence to execute the deed, Ex.
It appears that Dharam Singh was murdered in 1940 and his son Hemkumar was involved as an accused but he, was acquitted in that case.
They challenged the validity of Ex.
Subhagwati was number entitled to a share and Hemkumar was entitled to an increased share on account of the custom of Jethansi.
Subhagwati is the second wife of Dharam Singh and the mother of appellant number 1.
The trial judge found that the partition deed.
1 Hem Kumar Dinmani Dfdt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
D 4 and there was numberground for reopening the partition which had already taken place.
At the tingle of his death, Dharam Singh had left 102.28 acres of ryoti land in village Tilgi and 16.56 acres of ryoti land at village Supaka and also some house properties.
The High Court took the view that the deed, Ex.
569 and 568 of 1960 respectively.
D 4 dated December 27, 1943 was number executed by Mst.
The appellants accordingly prayed that there should be a fresh partition by metes and bounds of the joint family pro perties and they should be given 1/4 th share each therein.
Jampalhin Second wife Mst.
Subhagwati, appellant number 2 appeared as a prosecution witness in the murder case and deposed against Hemkumar.
569 of 1960.
D 4 was prejudicial to Shiromani who was a minor at that time because he was given less than the share to which he was entitled and his mother Mst.
2 Plff.
The relationship of the parties will appear from the following pedigree Dharam Singh First wife Mst.
Sarjoo Prasad and D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondents in both the appeals .
V. Gupte and G. L. Sanghi, for the appellants in both the appeals .
1 and 3, Hemkumar and Dinomani and appellant number 1 Shiromani are the sons of late Dharam Singh Agharia.
749 of 1965 Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur dated November 8, 1963 in Second Appeal No.
Respondents number.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Civil Appeal No.
