59 of 1975.
It may however be stated that this objection of Ganga Prasad was overruled and all the legal representatives of Jamuna Prasad were impleaded as defendants including the appellant herein and her sister Indira Shukla by an order dated 25 8 1988.
15175 of 1991 was filed before this Court, on behalf of the respondent, which was disposed of on 3 3 1992.
It is number known whether Shyama Devi herself claimed any right under the Will at that stage.
Jamuna Prasad and Ganga Prasad filed an appeal before the High Court against the said decree.
During the preparation of the final decree on 6 5 1989 respondent filed a petition claiming 1/3 share in the properties.
On 1 9 1986, the appeal which had been filed before the High Court on behalf of Jamuna Prasad and Ganga Prasad, was disposed of in terms of the petition of companypromise.
This application was entertained because after the death of Jamuna Prasad, respondent claimed to be his one of the legal heirs.
The trial companyrt passed a preliminary decree on 24 1 1979 directing that the property to be divided into three moieties of 1/3 each and that if the defendants in the same branch claim separate shares among themselves over the property failing to their share, that their share should be companysidered by the Commissioner and a division by metes and bounds of their share also to be effected.
A suit for partition was filed in the year 1965 by Dhanpat Rai.
This application was allowed by trial companyrt on 13 7 1990.
There was an appeal against this preliminary decree to the High Court in Appeal No.
Jamuna Prasad died on 7 1 1987 leaving behind the appellant as his widow and two sons and four daughters including the respondent.
Shyama Devi filed a revision against this order in Civil Revision No.
747 of 1990 and Ganga Prasad filed Civil Revision No.
151 of 1993 before the High Court, which has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 21 4 1994.
In the said suit a preliminary decree was passed on 24 1 1975 in respect of the properties in dispute.
The High Court was of the opinion that the application dated 6 5 1989 filed on behalf of the respondent was maintainable but the trial companyrt has to decide afresh as to what share she was entitled after hearing all the parties companycerned.
The application filed by the said respondent was allowed by the Additional District Judge on 13 7 1990.
Jamuna Prasad and Ganga Prasad were defendants in the said suit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.
It is against this order the appellant who is the daughter of the deceased Jamuna Prasad has filed this appeal.831 of 1990.
Against the said order of the High Court, Special Leave Petition Civil No.
That petition was rejected on 22 2 1983.
The parties seem to have entered into companypromise on 5 5 1980 but before the companypromise was made a decree of Court, Jamuna Prasad second defendant died on 9 1 1987.
On 28 6 1982, the respondent made an application before the High Court, to be impleaded as a party being the daughter of Jamuna Prasad.
In this revision petitions before the High Court number of objections were raised against the order of the trial companyrt.
Mrs Manju Shukla, Respondent 1 hereinafter referred to as the respondent is one of the daughters of the aforesaid Jamuna Prasad.
The respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 7 12 1992 filed a Civil Revision Petition No.
The appellant being aggrieved by the said order filed a civil revision petition before the High Court.
It may be mentioned that in the present appeal, we are companycerned with the branch of Jamuna Prasad, who had two sons and four daughters, apart from his wife, who is appellant 1 hereinafter referred to as the appellant .
On 5.5.1980, a petition of companypromise was filed on behalf of Dhanpat Rai, Jamuna Prasad and Ganga Prasad in the High Court.
Thereafter on 6 5 1989 the appellant filed an application praying that the direction be issued to the Commissioner to divide her share out of 1/3 share of Jamuna Prasad in moveable and immovable properties and allot the same to her.
This application was opposed by Ganga Prasad brother of Jamuna Prasad on the ground that Jamuna Prasad had executed a Will during his lifetime in favour of his wife Shyama Devi on 7 3 1986 and as such only the widow should be impleaded as the party and number all the heirs of Jamuna Prasad.
By the impugned order of the High Court dated 28 5 1991 the High Court held that her application dated 6 5 1989 was maintainable but however it will have to be decided afresh by the trial companyrt after giving an opportunity to the affected parties.
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants, for setting aside an order dated 21 4 1994, passed by the High Court of Rajasthan.
By the aforesaid order, the revision petition of Respondent 1 was allowed and a direction was given to the Additional District Judge, to make afresh adjudication of the objections filed on behalf of the parties, to the report of the Commissioner.
