Thereafter, a review petition was filed and by the judgment dated 24.11.2007, the review was dismissed but this time adverting to Section 8 1 d of the 1933 Act and decreeing the suit with reference to the said Section.
One of the said daughters namely Sunanda filed a suit against defendant No.1 her mother, defendant Nos.
The 4th defendant has been joined in the suit inasmuch as the first defendant widow had sold one of the scheduled items of the suit property namely item No.3 to the said 4th defendant during the pendency of the suit.
In the year 1940 1941, Mahabalaiah and Thimmappa partitioned and divided their joint family properties and got possession of their respective shares.
2 and 3 her sisters, and defendant No.4 the purchaser, being O.S. No.46 of 1994.
Mahabalaiah being the elder brother was the Karta of the said family.
The widow has executed a will on 9.5.1990 bequeathing her share in the joint family property in favour of only one of the three daughters namely the third defendant.
After setting out the relevant facts, the Civil Judge, Senior Division by judgment dated 28.3.2005 framed as many as 12 issues and ultimately decided on application of Section 10 2 g of the 1933 Act that the plaintiff would be entitled to a 1/4th share in the scheduled properties and the suit was decreed accordingly.
X of 1933 .
Thimmappa died on 9.10.1952, leaving behind him his widow one Gowramma and three daughters.
In a first appeal filed by defendant No.1, the first Appellate Court agreed with the companyclusions both on facts as well as law with the trial companyrt.
One Venkatsubbaiah had two sons Mahabalaiah and Thimmappa.
After the death of Venkatsubbaiah, the two sons and the wife of Mahabalaiah companystituted a joint Hindu family.
Accordingly, the first appeal was dismissed on 5.8.2005.
F. Nariman, J. Delay companydoned in filing the special leave petitions.
Leave granted.
