The trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 24 1 1979 directing that the property to be divided into three moieties of 1/3 each and that if the defendants in the same branch claim separate shares among themselves over the property falling to their share, that their share should be companysidered by the Commissioner and a division by metes and bounds of their share also to be effected.
By the impugned order of the High Court dated 28 5 1991 the High Court held that her application dated 6 5 1989 was maintainable but however it will have to be decided afresh by the trial Court after giving an opportunity to the affected parties.
This application was opposed by Ganga Prasad brother of Jamuna Prasad on the ground that Jamuna Prasad had executed a Will during his lifetime in favour of his wife Shyama Devi on 7 3 1986 and as such only the widow should be impleaded as the party and number all the heirs of Jamuna Prasad.
It is stated that Jamuna Prasad executed a Will on 7 3 1986 bequeathing his property to his wife Shyama Devi.
The eldest brother died leaving two sons by name Ganga Prasad and Jamuna Prasad who were impleaded as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.
The parties seem to have entered into companypromise on 5 5 1980 but before the companypromise was made a decree of Court, Jamuna Prasad second defendant died on 9 1 1987.
It may however be stated that this objection of Ganga Prasad was overruled and all the legal representatives of Jamuna Prasad were impleaded as defendants including the appellant herein and her sister Indira Shukla by an order dated 25 8 1988.
Thereafter on 6 5 1989 the appellant filed an application praying that the direction be issued to the Commissioner to divide her share out of 1/3 share of Jamuna Prasad in moveable and immovable properties and allot the same to her.
But it is number on evidence that this Will was propounded and any objection was taken at that time to the legal representatives being brought on record by the High Court in the appeal but it appears though the legal representatives application was ordered impleading the Wife, two sons and sic.
This application was allowed by trial Court on 13 7 1990.
In this revision petitions before the High Court number of objections were raised against the order of the trial Court.
The legal representatives of his two brothers who were entitled to remaining 2/3 share were impleaded as parties defendants in the suit.
Defendants 3 to 9 are the legal representatives of the other deceased brother.
Shyama Devi filed a revision against this order in Civil Revision No.
The suit was filed by one Dhanpat Rai claiming partition of his 1/3 share.
But substantially the preliminary decree of the trial Court remains the same insofar as direction relating to the division of the shares and allotment of the same among the sharers of each of the branches.
There was an appeal against this preliminary decree to the High Court in Appeal No.
His legal representatives namely the widow, two sons and sic.
It is against this order the appellant who is the daughter of the deceased Jamuna Prasad has filed this appeal.747 of 1990 and Ganga Prasad filed Civil Revision No.
It is number known whether Shyama Devi herself claimed any right under the Will at that stage.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
four daughters in the appeal the cause title was number amended.
59 of 1975.
four daughters were brought on record and the appeal was disposed of in terms of companypromise.
831 of 1990.
