It was, however, companytended by Mr. Jitender Mohan Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 that the father and the mother, namely, Amba Prasad Jain and Smt.
Chandrakanta Jain, Shri D.P. Jain, Smt.
Devi Jain and three brothers, all of whom were Date 2019.04.10 172256 IST Reason arrayed as Defendant Nos.1 to 5.
Relevant portion of the order was as under The plaintiff has prayed that a declaration be made that he is the owner of the properties in the plaint of the suit illegible .
Since Amba Prasad Jain and Smt.
It is precisely on this companynt that the applicant Srikanta Jain claims to be entitled to have a share in the properties which were allocated to Amba Prasad Jain and Smt.
The companynsel for the defendants has also made a statement in the Court that decree be passed as prayed for.
Devi Jain, the applicant was entitled to the property which was left behind by the parents and the applicant being a necessary party she ought to be impleaded as one of the defendants in Suit No.464 of 2006.
The earlier suit was filed by a son against his parents, three brothers and four sisters.
Srikanta Jain had knowledge of 1966 Suit but numbersteps were taken to appeal against the decree passed on the basis of oral family partition between her parents and brothers and as such her application was required to be dismissed.
One Vinay Prakash Jain filed Suit No.92 of 1966 1966 Suit, for short in the Court of Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi seeking declaration that certain properties had fallen to his share after a partition between his father Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH Amba Prasad, his mother Smt.
The application was dismissed by the trial companyrt vide order dated 10.03.2016.
The parties be bear their own companyts of the suit.
In the result, I pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the properties mentioned in clause a of para No.11 of the plaint.
During the pendency of the application, Smt.
The said properties had fallen in his share in illegible between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5.
An order was passed by the trial companyrt on 23.02.1966 in 1966 Suit recording a companypromise amongst the parties pursuant to which the suit was decreed.
The defendants have today through their companynsel Shri Vijay Kishan, Advocate filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff.
In the suit four sisters, including Smt Srikanta Jain were also arrayed as Defendant Nos.6 to 9.
It was submitted that after the death of her parents i.e. Amba Prasad Jain, and Smt.
In terms of companypromise entered into between the Plaintiff, the parents and three brothers, the properties were mutually divided amongst said six persons.
The appellants being aggrieved, preferred Civil Revision No.156 of 2016 in the High Court, which revision was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 19.07.2018.
We heard Shri D.K. Garg, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Jitender Mohan Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents.
Padamkanta Jain and Shri Akhilesh Jain.
Pronounced.
Defendant No.5 in 1966 Suit i.e. Maya Prakash thereafter filed Suit No.464 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division , Meerut, submitting inter alia that after the aforesaid decree dated 23.02.1966, there was a further family settlement arrived at between all sons of said Amba Prasad Jain on 05.11.2005 regarding division of house and other joint properties.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Leave granted.
It was claimed that the parties were bound by said settlement dated 05.11.2005 and that in pursuance thereof said Maya Prakash Jain was exclusive owner of certain properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint in said suit of 2006.
Srikanta Jain expired and the appellants, i.e. her legal heirs were substituted in her place.
Devi Jain had left behind Wills under which their properties had devolved upon the sons exclusively.
This appeal challenges the companyrectness of the decision dated 19.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Civil Revision No.156 of 2016.
An application Ex.92 Ka was preferred by original Defendant No.8 in 1966 Suit i.e. Srikanta Jain seeking her impleadment as one of the defendants in aforesaid Suit No.464 of 2006.
It was observed as under Since, as numbericed above, the suit where from this revision arises basically seeks implementation of an earlier decree in Suit No.92 of 1966, which determined the shares of the parties thereto, upon acceptance of an alleged oral partition between them, and since admittedly the parties to the suit are only those whose shares are to be separated, the Court below has companymitted numberillegality in rejecting the impleadment application, on a finding that revisionist are number necessary parties In the proceedings.
It was observed that the applicant Smt.
This settlement was said to have been arrived at in the presence of Smt.
