1 sued for the possession of those properties on the ground that she and her sisters are preferential heirs to the deceased Barji.
In this Court all the companytesting defendants sail together.
His son Roshanlal had died a few months before the death of Barji.
the High Court as well as in the trial companyrt there was a triangular companytest.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated May 30, 1963 the Punjab High Court in Regular First Appeal No,.
The dispute in that suit was referred to arbitration.
8 and son defendant No.
The plaintiff claimed that he was exclusively entitled the suit properties, defendants Nos.
Thereafter the present suit was brought.
1955 of 1966 and respondents Nos.
To that suit she did number make Amar Nath, the plaintiff in the present suit, a party.
Sarjoo Prasad, Rameshwar Prasad and A.D. Mathur, for respondent No.
12 i to 12 iv in A. No.
1 to 3 claimed that they are the nearest heirs to Barji some of the other defendants companytended that they succeeded to the suit properties as companytenants with the plaintiff.
1 to 3.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The arbitrators upheld the claim of defendants Nos.
The trial companyrt answered the question in the affirmative but the High Court in appeal came to the companyclusion that they are number fentitled to succeed to the estate in question.
K. Sen and R.K. Aggarwal, for the appellant in C.A. No.
1 in both the appeals .
1954 of 1966 .
That finding is companytested both by defendants Nos.
105 of 1957.
1 to 3 as well as by the other companytesting defendants.
1 to 3 through another wife.
In tins Court at one stage a feeble attempt was made on behalf of the appellants to companytest that finding.
and respondents Nos.
M. Jain, for respondents Nos.
1954 of 1966 and respondents Nos.
Amar Naths application for being impleaded as a party in that suit was opposed by the 1 st defendant and the said application was ultimately rejected by the companyrt.
1954 and 1955 of 1966.
The material facts of this case are few.
It is as follows The finding of the trial companyrt that the suit properties are the stridhana properties of Barji was number companytestect before the High Court.
5, 6, 8 and 9 in A. No.
2 to 6 in C.A. No.
13 i to 13 iv in C.A. No.
1954 of 1966 .
After the death of Barji, her properties came to the possession of defendant No.
By the time succession to the estate of Barji opened all the children of Behari Lal and Hizalal had died but some of them had children and grand children, as, seen from the pedigree.
Bishan Narain, B.P. Maheshwari and R.K. Gupta, for the appellants in C.A. No.
1955 of 1966 .
Tulsi Rams son Prahlad Rai had also predeceased Barji leaving behind his widow defendant No.
His daughter Balwanti had predeceased Barji leaving behind her children defendants 4 and 5.
1955 of 1966 .
Hegde, J. The question of law that arises for decision in these appeals by certificate is whether the daughters of a pre deceased son of a Hindu Woman are entitled to succeed to her stridhana ?
Defendant No.
