It was furthermore alleged There has never been any such attempt by the plaintiff for partition of the property as alleged in the plaint.
The suit was filed by late Harikhsian Singh against the first petitioner and his son Rajinder Singh.
Karam Kaur also died on 14.9.1992.
Defendant No.3 being the legal heir of defendant No.2, who is number heard of since more than 7 years and thereby presumed to be dead in the eye of law.
An interlocutory application was filed by the appellant thereafter purported to be in terms of Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to the share of the parties in the said Bombay Cycle Company.
However, the allegation that she died intestate is incorrect and false.
The plaintiff has also never companyoperated in managing the matters immediately after the death of Late Sunder Singh, the father of the plaintiff and defendant 1.
The question which arose for companysideration of the companyrt, however, was as regards the share of the parties therein.
Call on 16.3.2006.
By reason of an order dated 14th March, 2006, the said application was allowed, directing Admittedly the petitioners have raised a plea in respect of Bombay Cycle Company in their written statement but there was numberspecific issue framed in the regard.
They were brothers.
No relief is passed against the respondent No.4 in this petition.
A civil revision application filed thereagainst by the respondents has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.
The first defendant is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property.
On 21.1.02, basing on the pleadings of defendant No.3, the following additional issues were settled iii.
Karam Kaur executed a registered will on 1.9.1981 before the Sub registrar, Chikkadpally bequeathing her 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property as well as her 50 rights as a partner in the business of M s. Bombay Cycle Company to the defendant No.2, herein.
The plaintiff is very well aware that Smt.
In the written statement, it was, inter alia, companytended There has never been any such attempt by the plaintiff for partition of the property as alleged in the plaint.
It is also true that widow of late Sri Sunder Singh, i.e., Smt.
In fact, the plaintiff has failed to render true and proper account of the business of M s. Bombay Cycle Company though he was specifically called upon to do so by the defendant 2, individually as well through his companynsel.
Karam Kaur having executed a registered will on 1.9.81, her 1/3rd share naturally goes to the defendant 2, herein.
First respondent is the widow of late Harikishan Singh and the second respondent is his son.
Whereas according to the petitioner, the plaintiff had only 1/3rd share in the suit property, according to the plaintiff he had 1/2nd share therein.
The suit was decreed declaring 1/3rd share in favour of the plaintiff as also the first defendant, stating The plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share only in the suit schedule property.
Having knocked away some of the securities and other amounts which were in the hands of the plaintiff after death of late Sunder Singh singularly the plaintiff has chosen to file the present suit for partition claiming 50 share in the residential house, which is mentioned as suit schedule property.
Defendant No.3 is entitled to his D2 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property.
An application for amendment of the said written statement was filed, inter alia, stating It is true that Sri Sunder Singh died on 26.4.1980 intestate leaving behind his widow, the plaintiff and the defendant 1 herein.
The respondents objected thereto.
yards.
In the written statement, the said fact was admitted.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The property which was the subject matter of the partition suit was a house premises bearing Municipal No.2 4 1099 situated at Nimbali Adds, Hyderabad admeasuring 671 sq.
Whether a property can be added in the list of properties after a preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit is the question involved herein.
In the circumstances the plaintiff would number be entitled to anything more than 33.33 of the suit Schedule property if at all.
The parties hereto are successors of one late Surender Singh and one late Harikishan Singh.
Having knocked away some of the securities and other amounts which were in the hands of the plaintiff after death of late Sunder Singh singularly the plaintiff has chosen to file the present suit for partition claiming 50 share in the residential house, which is mentioned as suit schedule property.
