Pending the suit Rama Bai died and defendants 1 and 2 her sons have been impleaded as her legal representatives.
Suit for partition, separate possession and profits instituted by the plaintifffirst respondent has been decreed by the appellate Court with the following shares plaintiff 1/12, first defendant 5/12 and second defendant 6/12.
One Atmaram, who died on January 13,1971,had two wives Janki Bai and Rama Bai.
Firstly, the will said to have been executed by Rama Bai in favour of the first defendant was number in issue in the suit number in the L.R. application and numberfinding with respect to its truth and validity has been recorded.
of Rama Bai .
This was done numberwithstanding the plea of the first defendant Krishna that Rama Bai has executed a will bequeathing her entire interest in his favour aline.
Rama Bai was alive when the suit was instituted and she was impleaded as the third defendant.
On the other hand, the High Court has accepted the will as true and accordingly modified the shared of these two defendants as 7/12 and 4/12 respectively.
Plaintiff Indira Bai and the 4th defendant latya are the children by Janaki Bai.
The High Court has modified the said shares in the following manner plaintiff 1/12, first defendant 7/12 and second defendant 4/12.
The dispute really is between defendants 1 and 2.
Heard learned companynsel for booth the parties.
Whereas first defendant Krishna and second defendant Baliram are the sons through Rama Bai.
Leave granted.
In this appeal we are number companycerned with the shares of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.
Since fils share has been reduced by the High Court, the present has been preferred by the second defendant .
Here again the plaintiffs share at 1/12 is number in dispute.
Second defendant is the appellant.
In our opinion, the High Court was number justified in modifying the shares as aforesaid .
The appellate companyrt had determined the shares of defendant 1 and defendant 2, keeping aside the will relied upon the first defendant .
Notwithstanding the said will, both the brothers defendants 1 and 2 were impleaded as the Rs.
