The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed on the basis thereof.
The relationship between the parties is number in dispute.
Tulsi Ram was the owner of the property.
The issue is decided accordingly.
The aforementioned five sons of Tulsi Ram were members of a Mitakshara Coparcenary.
Lal Chand and Sohan Lal Plaintiffs Respondents and three daughters Appellants herein .
The High Court opined that for the purpose of determination of the said question it was necessary to determine the nature of the property.
Indisputably, the names of the parties were shown in the revenue records having l/5th share each.
The said order of the revenue authorities came to be challenged by plaintiffs respondents herein, inter alia, on the premise that defendants had number acquired any right, title and interest in the property.
A finding of fact has been arrived at that the parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.
Babu Ram thed in the year 1989 leaving behind two sons, viz.,
However, on the death of Uggar Sain, 1/20th share of Tulsi Rams property was also devolved on him.
The names of all the brothers were mutated in the year 1927 in respect of the properties left by Tulsi Ram.
On a Second Appeal having been filed by Appellants herein, according to the High Court, the only question which required determination was as to whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Act would apply to the facts of the present case or the law as applicable prior to the enforcement of the 1956 Act would apply.
The learned Trial Judge in his judgment recorded the following As a result keeping in view the evidence on record I hold that the plaintiffs and Babu Ram had companystituted a Joint Hindu Family and out of the land in suit 1/5th share was separate property of Babu Ram and 4/5th share was ancestral property in the hands of Babu Ram qua the plaintiffs.
Upon the death of Tulsi Ram, Babu Ram inherited 1/5th share in the property.
Waliati, Babu Ram, Charanji Lal, Hukam Chand and Uggar Sain.
The sons of Tulsi Ram were, thus, companyarceners.
He died in the year 1889 leaving behind five sons, viz.,
The Appellate Court also affirmed the decree passed by the learned Trial Judge.
B. SINHA.
1627 of 1994 dismissing an appeal from a judgment and order dated 23rd May, 1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala affirming a judgment and decree dated 17th May, 1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class Samana decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents herein.
Interpretation of some of the provisions of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for short the Act and, in particular, Sections 6 and 8 thereof arises for companysideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 10th October, 2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No.
J. Leave granted.
