These findings were further affirmed by the first Appellate Court after evaluating the evidence, the High Court took a companytrary view and reversed the findings recorded by the two Courts.
3 and as such the plaintiffs have numberright over any of the suit properties.
The trial Court recorded the finding that the defendants had failed to establish the adoption of Purshottam by late Lachiram and the execution of will in his favour in respect of the suit properties and that Lachiram was the owner of all the properties in suit at the time of his death in which the plaintiffs are entitled to half share.
It was averred by the plaintiffs that the defendants were requested for separate possession by partition to the extent of their half share in the suit property but the defendants were number agreeable for the same which led to the filing of the suit for partition.
138/1969 which was dismissed on 28.12.1970.
The plaintiffs claimed half share in the suit properties being the legal heirs of deceased Lachiram.
It was alleged by the plaintiffs that deceased Lachiram during his life time challenged the plaintiffs ownership in respect of survey Nos.171/1, 160 and 159/3 by filing civil suit No.
1 Sunita Bai daughter Meena Bai daughter from from Kashi Bai Parvati Bai Defendant/ Plaintiff appellant No.
Lachi Ram Dead Kashi Bai first wife Parwati Bai second wife Plaintiff appellant Defendant respondent No.
2 respondent No.
110/1, 218 and 149/1 It was alleged that the defendant No.
1 towards her maintenance in addition to a portion of suit house and placed the plaintiff No.
172/1, 160 and 159/3 of village Eklara.
The defendants companytested the suit.
3 Purshottam had become the owner of those properties.
It was alleged by the plaintiffs that Lachiram during his life time had given survey Nos.171/1, 160 and 159/3 to the plaintiff No.
3 becueathing the suit properties to the defendant No.
The defendant No.
127, 129/1 and 120/2 from one Iranna on 21st March 1354 fasli 1945 A.D. by a registered sale deed and she was the exclusive owner with possession thereof and the plaintiffs had numberright over the same and those lands companyld number be the subject matter of the partition.
3 As would be clear from the family tree the plaintiff No.
1 and defendant No.
The trial Court also recorded the finding that the plaintiffs were the absolute owner of lands bearing survey Nos.
682/1981 reversing the judgment and decree of the two Courts below passed in favour of the plaintiffs appellants herein.
172/1, 160 and 159/3 and the portion of the house the defendants took the plea that the same were given to the plaintiffs for their maintenance and, therefore, they were number entitled to claim any share in the suit properties.
1 had herself purchased survey Nos.
1 in possession thereof and she became full owner of the said land after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force.
128/A was received by defendant No.
2 is the daughter of Lachiram from his first wife.
The said judgment was companyfirmed in first and second appeals and thus the plaintiffs became the absolute owner of the same.
The appellants herein shall be described as plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants hereinafter for the sake of companyvenience.
1 and that survey No.
Regarding the decision in Civil Suit No.
The plaintiffs brought this suit for separate possession by partition of a double storey house, open plot and some agricultural lands as described in the plaint, situated at village Eklara, Taluka Mukhed.
Further case of the plaintiffs was that during the life time of Lachiram survey No.
111/2 and survey No.
After appreciation of evidence on record adduced by the parties the trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for separate possession by partition.
Kashi Bai and the defendant No.
The defendants though admitted the relationship but denied the claim of the plaintiffs for partition on the ground that the defandant No.
Meena and grand son of late Lachiram.
1 during the pendency of the suit as a result of a decision of pending suit between deceased Lachiram and one Naga and, therefore, the same were also liable to partition and the plaintiffs were entitled to half share by partition in the said lands also.
1 are the two widows of deceased Lachiram while the plaintiff No.
In their written statement they denied the plaintiffs claim and took the stand that deceased Lachiram at the time of his death was the owner only of survey Nos.
129/7 were purchased by Lachiram in the name of defendant No.
138 of 1969 the defendants companytended that the same was number binding on them as on the death of Lachiram, the defendant No.
3, Purshottam is the son of defendant No.
2 Meena Bai is his daughter from his second wife, Parvati Bai.
2 Purshottam son of Meena Bai Defendant respondent No.
Faizan Uddin, J. Leave granted.
With regard to survey Nos.
The following family tree will indicate the inter se relationship of the parties to the suit out of which the present appeal arises.
3, Purshottam son of Meena Bai was adopted by deceased Lachiram under the registered Deed of Adoption dated 29.4.1970 and that Lachiram had also executed the Deed of Will on the same date i.e. dated 29.4.1970 in favour of Purshottam, defendant No.
This appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1992 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Second Appeal No.
