The trial companyrt and first appellate companyrt also held that defendants 1 to 5 each were entitled to 1/12th share.
The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave by defendants 2 to 5, as first defendant died after the decision of the High Court.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt by judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999 declaring that Sewanti Bai was entitled to 7/12th share in the suit schedule properties and directing division by metes and bounds through the Revenue Authorities.
The trial companyrt also declared that the will dated 22.2.1983 was number valid number binding on the plaintiff.
Ganaram died in the year 1986.
The first appellate companyrt by judgment dated 14.2.2003, dismissed both the appeal and cross objections thereby companyfirming the decision of the trial companyrt.
It held that if there had been a partition of the joint family properties during the life time of Ganaram, then Ganaram, Lehja Bai and Sahdeo would have each got 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties that when Ganaram died, his wife, four daughters and son were each entitled to a 1/6th share in his 1/3rd share that as his son Sahdeo had died, Sahdeos 1/18th share was further divided into two shares of 1/36th each and taken by his wife Sewanti Bai and mother Lehja Bai.
Defendants 2 to 5 resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the deceased Ganaram had left a will dated 22.2.1983 bequeathing the suit properties in their favour.
The trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt proceeded on the basis that Ganaram and Sahdeo each had a half share in the suit schedule properties, that on the death of Sahdeo, his wife Sewanti Bai succeeded to his half share that when Ganaram died subsequently, his wife Lehja Bai, his daughter in law Sewanti Bai and four daughters D2 to D5 each became entitled to 1/6th share in his half share and that therefore, Sewanti Bai was entitled to the half share of Sahdeo plus 1/12th share from Ganarams share that is, 1/6th of Ganarams half share , in all to 7/12th share.
Defendants 1 to 5 filed a second appeal before the High Court wherein the only question that was raised was whether the companyrts below were justified in holding that Sewanti Bai was entitled to 7/12th share.
She impleaded her mother in law Lehja Bai as the first defendant, four sisters in law as defendants 2 to 5 and the State of Madhya Pradesh as defendant number6.
Feeling aggrieved, defendants 1 to 5 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Chhindwara MP .
Ganaram and Lehja Bai had four daughters in addition to their only son Sahdeo.
This appeal arises out of a suit for partition.
Sewanti Bai filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her share in the joint family properties, in the year 1989.
Lehja Bai was the wife of Ganaram and mother of Sahdev.
In the said appeal, Sewanti Bai filed cross objections companytending that she was entitled to mesne profits from the date of the suit to the date of possession.
Sahdeo died intestate in the year 1972 issueless survived by his wife Sewanti Bai.
This appeal is by the defendants in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by first respondent.
One Ganaram and his son Sahdeo companystituted a joint family.
Heard.
V. RAVEENDRAN J., Leave granted.
