By this arrangement, Purandas left numberproperty in respect of which any partitition companyld be made.
Sons of Motilal, namely Raman Lal and Shanti Lal, were impleaded as Defendants 7 and 8 and Yoga Bai, daughter of Purandas was impleaded as Defendant No.9.
Respondent No.7 is Yoga Bai, namely, the daughter of Purandas.
The business was being carried on under the name style of Purandas Ranchhoddas Sons.
The plaintiffs claimed 1/5th share in the property.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit with a finding that Purandas had left Hyderabad and went back to Burhanpur in 1942 and before leaving he gave one shop at Secunderabad to his son Dwarkadas , the shop at Gulzar House, Hyderabad to his other three sons.
The appeal was ordered to companytinue in respect of Respondent No.7.
Purandas died in the year 1962.
He had four sons, namely, Ranchhoddas, Dwarkadas, Motilal, Babulal and a daughter Yoga Bai.
Ranchhoddas was eldest son.
His wife, Purna Bai and sons Daya Bhai and Raj Kumar filed a suit for partition of the properties as joint family property impleading Ranchhoddas as the Defendant No.1 and his sons as Defendants 2 to 5.
No one has turned up for Respondent No.7, namely, the legal representatives of Yoga Bai.
The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs in the High Court has been allowed holding that plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the property.
The present appeal is against the judgment of the High Court.
The respondents 1, 2 and 3 are the plaintiffs and Respondent No.4 Motilal is son of Purandas who has died and respondents No.5 and 6 are sons of Motilal.
Legal Representatives of Respondent No.7 have chosen number to put in appearance though served.
She also died during the pendency of the case and her legal representatives have been brought on record.
It appears that he had different businesses mainly perfume business in two places in Hyderabad.
That being the position, Ranchhodddas companytinued to look after the business.
Dwarkadas died in the year 1966.
The appellants herein filed their written statements denying the fact that there was any joint family property as claimed by the plaintiffs.
This appeal stood disposed of by order dated 2.9.1994 on the basis of a companypromise except as against Respondent No.7.
J U D G M E N T Brijesh Kumar J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the appeal of the plaintiff respondent herein and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial companyrt dismissing the suit for partition.
