During the pendency of this appeal Khilonabai died on July 3, 1956 and Ramchand and Munnalal applied to be impleaded as her legal representatives in respect of the interest in the property awarded to Khilonabai by the preliminary decree.
Accordingly the decree of the trial Court was modified and 1/3rd Share in the joint family property was awarded to Rajkumar, 1/3rd to the branch of Munnalal and the remaining 1/3rd to the branch.
held by her as full owner thereof and number as a limited owner.
the Additional District Judge rejected this plea and ordered a preliminary decree for partition and declared that the share of the plaintiff was 1/24th, of Munnalal, his wife and 3 sons companylectively was 5/24th, of Ramchand and his sons 1/4th, of Khilonabai 1/4th and the remaining 1/4th share belonged to Rajkumar.
But Bhuribai and Rajkumar pleaded that the parties were governed in the matter of adoption by the customary law prevalent amongst the Jains of Central India, Madhya Pradesh, Vindhya Pradesh.
A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 177.
The validity of the adoption of Rajkumar was challenged on many grounds, one only of which is material in this appeal.
This order, it appears, was passed with the companysent of all the parties.
11 Def.
It was submitted by the companytesting defendants and Bhuribai had numberauthority express or implied from her husband Padam Chand to adopt a son and that the adoption of Rajkumar as a son without such authority was invalid.
of Ramchand and adjustments were made on that footing in the shares of the plaintiff and other members of the family.
In their view, Khilonabais interest under the decree being incohate was number Possessed by her within.
The Additional District Judge ordered that Khilonabai grandmother of Munnalal and Ram chand the wives of Munnalal and Ramchand and their sons and Bhuribai widow of Padamchand and Rajkumar who claimed to be a son of Padam Chand by adoption by Bhuribai on July 26, 1952, be impleaded as defendants to the suit.
Before the High Court two questions were canvassed 1 as to the factum and validity of the adoption of Rajkumar, and 2 devolution of the share of Khilonabai declared by the preliminary decree on her death.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 25, 1959 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
Against them decree, Munnalal, Ramchand, Khilonabai, wife and sons of Munnalal and the wife and sons of Ramchand who were defendants 1 to 10 preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Padamchand had died before the enactment of the Hindu Womens Rigbt to Property Act, 1937, and his widow companyld number claim by virtue of that Act a share in the property of the family.
A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 77.
139 of 1955.
He claimed that in the property his fathers branch was entitled to have a half share and the remaining half was owned by Ram Chand and his branch.
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
But the High Court diclined to accept the view of the trial Court that the right of Khilonabai declared by the preliminary decree devolved upon Munnalal and Ramchand alone.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, S. T. Desai, J. Dadachanji, 0.
North and Western India, and Rajkumar as a son adopted by Bhuribai to Padam Chand became a companyarcener in the joint family and entitled to a share in the property and accretions thereto.
15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which was brought into operation on June 14, 1956, and that the sons of Munnalal, Ramchand and Padam Chand companyld number take a share in Khilonabais interest.
At the trial of the suit the right of Saheblal to a share in the property was Dot questioned .
5 Def.
4 Def.
12 A of 1952.
12 adopted 26.7.52 Saheblal Ballu Nand Hiralal Ishwari Kumar Prasad Plaintiff dead Def.
the dispute principally turned upon the claim made by Bhuribai and her adopted son Rajkumar to a share in the property.
The following pedigree explains the relationship between the parties GaribdasMst.
the meaning of s. 14 1 1947 L.R. 74 I.A. 254.
8 Adupted son Rajkumar Def.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
10 Saheblal son of Munnalal filed Suit No.
6 Def.7 Rajendra Kumar Abhay Kumar Def 9 Def.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. This appeal with special leave is against the decree of the Madhya Pradesh High Court companyfirming the decree of the 1st Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.
3 d.3.7.56 Gulzarilal d. 13.4.39 Munnalal Padamchand d.10.1.36 Ramchand Def 1 Def 2 Pyaribabu widow Bhuribai Chandrani bahu Def.
130 of 61.
The parties are Digambar Jains of the Porwal Sect and are residents of Jabalpur which at the material time was in Madhya Pradesh.
1 and 2.
Khilonabai d. 24.7.34 Def.
Sarjoo Prasad and G. C. Mathur, for respondents No.
12A of 1952 in the Court of the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Jabalpur on June 21, 1952, for a decree of partition and separate possession of his 1/12th share in the joint family property.
By order dated December 12, 1957, the District Judge held that the interest of Khilonabai devolved upon the applicants by virtue of ss.
Ganpat Rai, for respondent No.
The dispute between the parties arose in a suit for partition of joint family property.
February 23.
