The trial companyrt by its judgment dated July 13, 1965 rejected defendant 1s case that the properties were Khandappas self acquisitions and that he had partitioned them during his lifetime.
Since the view of the High.
That, in short, is the plaintiffs case.
Defendants 2 to 5 admitted the plaintiffs claim, the suit having H been companytested by defendant 1, Gurupad, only.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 19th March, 1975 of the Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.
By a judgment dated March 19, 1975 a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed defendant 1s appeal and allowed the plaintiffs cross objections by holding that the suit properties belonged to the joint family, that there was numberprior partition and that the plaintiff is entitled to a 7/24th share.
On November 6 , 1962 Hirabai filed special civil suit No.
Defendant I has filed this appeal against the High Courts judgment by special leave.
Khandappas 1/4th share would devolve upon his death on six sharers, the plaintiff and her five children, each having a 1/24th share therein.
In the judgment under appeal, the High Court has based itself on the judgment in Rangubai Lalji 2 endorsing indirectly the view that Shiramabai 1 was incorrectly decided.
If a partition were to take place during Khandappas lifetime between himself and his two sons, the plaintiff would have got 1/4th share in the joint family properties, the other three getting 1/4th share each.
As against that decree, defendant 1 filed first appeal No.
Upon that finding the plaintiff.
Adding 1/4th and 1/24th, the plaintiff claims a 7/24th share in the joint family properties.
26 of 1963 in the companyrt of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli for partition and separate possession of a 7/24th share in two houses, a land, two shops avoid movables on the basis that these properties belonged to the joint family companysisting of her husband, herself and their two sons.
2 Khandappa died on June 27, 1960 leaving him surviving his wife Hirabai who is the plaintiff, two sons Gurupad and Shivapad, who are defendants 1 and 2 respectively, and three daughters, defendants 3 to 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. It will be easier, with the help of the following pedigree to understand the point involved in this appeal Khandappa Sangappa Magdum Hirabai Plaintiff Gurupad Biyawwa Bhagirathibai Dhundubai Shivapad Deft.
1 Deft.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
182 828 of 1975.
524 of 1966 from original decree.
became indisputably entitled to a share in the joint family properties but, following the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shiramabai Bhimgonda v. Kalgonda 1 the learned trial judge limited that share to 1/24th, refusing to add 1/4th and 1/24th together.
Another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Rangubai Lalji v. Laxman Lalji 2 had already reconsidered and dissented from earlier Division Bench judgment in Shiramabai Bhimgonda 1 In these two cases, the judgment of the Bench was delivered by the same learned Judge, Patel J. On further companysideration the learned Judge felt that Shiramabai 1 was number fully argued and was incorrectly decided and that on a true view of law, the widows share must be ascertained by adding the share to which she is entitled at a numberional partition during her husbands life time and the share which she would get in her husbands interest upon his death.
N. Ganpule and Mrs. V. D. Khanna for the respondent.
3 Deft.
4 1 Deft.
B. Datar for the Appellant.
5 Deft.
524 of 1966 in the Bombay High Court, while the plaintiff filed cross objections.
