1 as the absolute owner of entire suit property.
441 Survey No.
Hence the respondents are number entitled to claim any share in the suit property?
1 had died in the year 1954 before the Hindu Succession Act had companye into force.
The Appellant No.
2 and 26 at Tarsod, Taluka and District Jalgaon, Maharashtra.
1 became the absolute owner of the suit property which in her actual possession, as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs appellants to the extent of 11/24th share of the suit property leaving the remaining 13/24th share to the respondents.
Even if it is taken for granted that after the death of Balwantrao in 1954, original defendant No.
Respondents being aggrieved filed an appeal.
After her death he married Chhabubai.
Balwantrao Shinde married Anjanabai who died in the year 1940.
Respondents thereafter filed the second appeal in the High Court.
204 admeasuring 2 Hectors 27 Ares at Tarsod, Taluku and District Jalgaon, Maharashtra and Gram Panchayat House No.
One Balwantrao Shinde who died on 27th June, 1954 owned two suit properties, namely, Gat No.
1 companye in possession of the suit property as an alienated owner, her ownership rights had become absolute after the Hindu Succession Act had companye into force.
Plaintiffs appellants are the children from Anjanabai whereas the respondents are Chhabubai and her children.
Did the Lower Appellate Court have jurisdiction to give relief other than relief sought by the plaintiff because the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition i.e. for only half of portion, of the suit property, therefore, companyld the District Court have passed an Order that plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire suit property?
The defendants were held to be the owners in possession of the entire property.
The High Court formulated the following two questions as substantial questions of law arising from the order of the companyrts below Balwantrao the husband of Chhabubai Appellant herein Orig.
The appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the respondents held that the plaintiffs appellants were owners to the extent of entire suit property left by Balwantrao Shinde.
J U D G M E N T Bhan, J. Leave granted.
1 was in possession of the suit property even before the Hindu Succession Act companye into the force but after the Hindu Succession Act the original defendant No.
Appellants filed the suit for recovery of half share of the property left by Balwantrao Shinde whereas respondents claimed ownership of the entire property.
Plaintiffs, hereinafter referred to as the appellants, have filed this appeal challenging the final judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2001 passed by Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad whereby the High Court while allowing the appeal has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the companyrts below and held that defendant respondent No.
