Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayendra Awad vs Smt.Nivedita Sharma on 15 June, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
FIRST APPEAL No. 333 of 2009
Between:-
JAYENDRA AWAD S/O S/O LATE SHRI SAMBHAJI
RAO AWAD, AGED 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS, R/O AWAD-SAHEB-KA-BADA,
KAMPOO LASHKAR,GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. NIVEDITA SHARMA W/O SHRI ANIL
SHARMA, AGED 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCACY, R/O ASHOK BHAWAN, DAAL BAZAR
LASHKAR,GWALIOR, AT PRESENT R/O A/30/9
DLF PHASE-2,GURGAON.
2. SMT. SANYOGITA DHANWATE W/O VIJAYA RAO
DHANWATE, AGED 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEHOLD, R/O RAJMAJHEE RAMDAS PETH,
NAGPUR.
3. SHRI SAMBHAJI RAO AWAD S/O SHRI
JAYENDRA AWAD R/O AWAD BADA, ROXY
TALKIES RAOD, LASHKAR GALIOR.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANKUR MODY AND SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL
-ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, NONE FOR
2
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND SHRI S.S. KUSHWAH -ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heard and reserved on : 02-12-2021
Judgment delivered on : 15-06-2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. The instant first appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 is being preferred against the impugned judgment and decree
dated 05-09-2008 passed by VI Additional District Judge, Gwalior in
Civil Suit No.2-A/2006 whereby the suit preferred by respondent
No1/plaintiff has been decreed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case for adjudication are that
appellant/defendant No.1, respondent No1/plaintiff and respondent No.2
happen to be brother and sisters. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent
injunction against the appellant and other respondents on the ground that
plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 are brother and sisters and defendant
No.3 -Smt. Nalini Awad was their mother. Their father -late Sambhaji
Rao Awad who was husband of defendant No.3 and father of plaintiff
and defendants No.1 and 2 passed away on 14-04-1978 and one of the
brothers of their father late Narayan Rao Awad also passed away earlier
on 05-09-1974, therefore, plaintiff and other defendants are members of
same family and their father left behind some properties, description of
which is mentioned in the plaint and termed as disputed properties.
3. One of the brothers of plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 namely
Chandrasen passed away on 27-01-1998 and he allegedly executed a
Will in which he gave his property to his mother -defendant No.3 and it
was stated in the Will that after death of defendant No.3 property would
go to defendant No.2 (Smt. Sanyogita Dhanwate) and plaintiff (Smt.
Nivedita Sharma).
4. Initially, plaintiff prayed for the relief that father of plaintiff had 1/4 th
share in their ancestral property and she is entitled to 1/5 th share of 1/4th
share of his property. During pendency of the suit, it appears that the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
1956") was amended by amending Section 6 by the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment
Act, 2005") w.e.f. 09-09-2005 in which daughter of coparcener became
a coparcener by birth as of right in the same manner as the son and she
was given the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have
had if she had been a son. Therefore, it appears that amendment
application was preferred by the plaintiff and suitable amendments were
carried out in the plaint and reasserted her rights on the basis of amended
Section 6 of the Act of 1956.
5. Plaintiff categorically asserted in her plaint that partition has never taken
place in respect of Joint Hindu Family Property and therefore, she is
entitled to 1/4th share of properties of her father.
6. It is further asserted that defendant No.1 has tried to alter the nature and
status of property and disposed of certain properties, therefore,
appropriate adjustment by way of compensation be made in case
immovable properties are not available and wrongfully disposed of by
defendant No.1 (present appellant).
7. Written statement was filed by the contesting defendant namely Jayendra
Awad -present appellant. According to him, plaintiff created
misunderstanding between him and his mother (defendant No.3) and
therefore defendant No.3 earlier filed civil suit against defendant No.1 but
later on withdrawn it. He denied the submissions of plaintiff.
8. Defendant No.3 also filed written statement in which factum of earlier
partition was mentioned. According to defendant No.3 properties
mentioned in the plaint have been partitioned on 10-04-1987 between the
three sons of late Sambhaji Rao Awad (two sons deceased and one son
is present appellant) and knowledge of this partition is with plaintiff and
other defendants, therefore, property cannot be re-partitioned.
9. Trial Court framed as many as five issues on which trial was held and
evidence was led by the parties.
10. Core question for adjudication before the trial Court was whether
disputed properties are properties of Joint Hindu Family Property and if
yes then what is the impact and whether plaintiff is entitled for any share
in the said disputed property of her father late Sambhaji Rao Awad and
whether defendant No.1 has demolished some part of the property and
therefore whether plaintiff is entitled to get relief of injunction over the
said property.
11. Issues as framed by trial Court are as under:
^^1¼v½ D;k oknxzLr lEifRr okfnuh ,oa izfroknhx.k dh vfoHkkftr
la;qDr fganw ifjokj Xokfy;j dh lEifRr gS ? ;fn gka rks izHkko ?
¼c½ D;k oknxzLr lEifRr ftlesa okfnuh dk vius firk Lo0
laHkkthjko vokM ds oknxzLr lEifRr esa [email protected] fgLlk gS ? ;fn gka rks
izHkko ?
2- D;k izfroknh dza0 1 oknxzLr LFkku ds ,d Hkkx eas fufeZr
lEifRr dks rksM+ fn;k gS x;k ? mDr LFkku ftls okni= ds layXu
ekufp= esa yky frjNh js[kkvksa ls nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] ds laca/k esa
fu"ks/kkKk ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS ?
3- lgk;rk ,oa O;; ?
4- D;k okfnuh dk okn izpyu ;ksX; ugha gS ?
5- D;k okfnuh us U;k;'kqYd mfpr :i ls vnk ugha fd;k ?"
Issue No.1(a) and (b) and 2 were material for adjudication. After
considering the evidence (documentary as well as oral) trial Court
decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment and decree this first appeal has been preferred.
12. Trial Court concluded that no partition in respect of disputed property
took place on 10-04-1987 because in earlier suit which was filed by
defendant No.3 it contains pleadings in para 5 that no partition has taken
place in respect of property received by her husband late Sambhaji Rao
Awad in his lifetime and he never executed any Will. The said plaint is
exhibited as Ex-D/1 in which written statement of defendant No.1 which
was placed as Ex-P/1 contains admission of defendant No.1 about such
fact that no such partition ever took place. Such admission of defendant
No.1 in the civil suit filed by defendant No.3 was taken care of by the trial
Court and concluded that no such partition took place.
13. So far as impact of amended Section 6 of Act of 1956 was concerned, it
is found that plaintiff is held as one of the coparceners to get the property
partitioned in equal share just like son and it is further concluded that
since some of the properties have been demolished by respondent No.1
therefore, plaintiff is entitled to get due adjustment ( foijhr lek;kstu)
against defendant No.1.
14. Preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court in which property was
directed to be measured and then partition the property in metes and
bounds. Plaintiff was found entitled to receive 1/4 th share along with due
adjustment of all properties coming under the share of defendant No.1
15. Being aggrieved by said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 preferred
first appeal under Section 96 of CPC before this Court by way of present
first appeal. After hearing rival submissions, Division Bench of this
Court passed judgment dated 30-09-2011 in which appeal preferred by
appellant was dismissed and judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court was affirmed. Impugned judgment dated 30-09-2011 also
considered the applications preferred by appellant under Order VI Rule 17
of CPC (I.A.No.2795/2011) as well as application under Order XLI Rule
27 of CPC (I.A.No.2796/2011) and both were rejected for the reasons
referred in the said judgment.
16. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of
this Court, Special Leave Petition was preferred by the appellant which
was converted into Civil Appeal No.13935/2015 and was tagged along
with some other civil appeals with same subject matter in respect of
Section 6 of the Amendment Act, 2005.
17. The Apex Court heard those identical matters in bunch of cases in which
Civil Appeal No.7217/2013 (Prakash & Ors. Vs. Phulavati & Ors.)
was the leading case and after hearing all the parties concerned concluded
that rights under amendment are applicable to living daughters of living
coparceners as on 9th September, 2005 irrespective of when such
daughters are born. Disposition or alienation including partitions which
may have taken place before 20th December, 2004 as per law applicable
prior to the said date will remain unaffected. Any transaction of partition
effect thereafter will be governed by the explanation. According to Apex
Court proviso to Section 6(1) and sub-section (5) of Section 6 clearly
intend to exclude the transactions referred to therein which may have
taken place prior to 20th December, 2004 on which date the Bill was
introduced. Explanation cannot permit reopening of partitions which were
valid when effected.
18. On above interpretation, Civil Appeal No.7217/2013 (Prakash & Ors.
Vs. Phulavati & Ors.) {(2016) 2 SCC 36}was allowed and order of High
Court (Karnataka High Court) was set aside and matter was remanded
back to the High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. All
other matters including the present matter were posted on subsequent date
and thereafter, vide order dated 30-11-2015 passed in Civil Appeal
No.13935/2015 preferred by present appellant, impugned judgment dated
30-09-2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in first appeal
was set aside and matter was remanded back to the High Court for fresh
decision on merits in accordance with law.
19. Thereafter, matter was remanded back and as per the High Court Rules
and Orders, matter was placed before Single Bench as per Roster and
thereafter matter is being heard by this Court.
20. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court
erred in passing impugned judgment and decree because law of
succession which was applicable for the appellant was uncodified Hindu
Law according to which by birth son became equal right holder in the
ancestral property. After being born on 17-01-1953 (on documents date of
birth is 17-08-1954) that is prior to the Act of 1956, appellant became
equal share holder with father and grandfather as both were alive at that
point of time. Thereafter partition took place and severance of coparcener
between father and grandfather of appellant (and respondents) and
therefore, according to old Section 6 of right of succession by
survivorship, he is entitled for the ancestral property. Now the
Amendment Act, 2005 is not applicable in the present case in respect of
property in question and therefore, said ground has been sought to be
incorporated in the memo appeal by way of amendment application dated
15-03-2021 (I.A.No.1773/2021).
21. It is further submitted that after coming into force of the Act of 1956 from
50% share of father, all legal heirs became entitled for equal share on
demise of the father as the Act of 1956 prescribes no birth right.
Therefore, according to him being legal heir, plaintiff is entitled for 1/6 th
of half share (50%) of the father because 50% of father's share would
devolve on these legal heirs on demise of father as per notional partition
principle. He referred: (2016) 4 SCC 68 Uttam Vs. Saubagh Singh, AIR
1986 SC 1753 Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur etc. Vs.
Chander Sen etc. and AIR 1987 SC 558 Yudhister Vs. Ashok Kumar.
22. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff opposed the prayer on the
ground that as per the Amendment Act, 2005, daughters are having equal
right like son and matter has been decided by the trial Court in detail in
which it has been specifically found that no partition was taken place
earlier and therefore Amendment Act, 2005 and its provision would
apply with full force. Although matter was remanded back by the Apex
Court in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Prakash & Ors.
(supra), however the Apex Court in the recent judgment of Vineeta
Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and others, (2020) 9 SCC 1, reconciled
two conflicting views arise in the case of Prakash & Ors (supra) and
Danamma alias Suman Surpur Vs. Amar, (2018) 3 SCC 343. Plaintiff
prayed for dismissal of appeal and supported the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the trial Court.
23. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
24. It is a case where plaintiff sought partition on the strength of her status as
one of the coparceners being daughter of Joint Hindu Family Property
devolved through her father late Sambhaji Rao Awad. Admittedly plaintiff
and defendants No.1 and 2 are brother and sisters and defendant No.3 was
their mother.
25. First and foremost question is in respect of impact of Amendment Act,
2005 by way of Section 6, its explanation and exceptions.
26. For ready reference amended Section 6 as per Amendment Act, 2005 is
reproduced for ready reference:
"6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary property. --
(1) On and from the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, in a Joint Hindu family governed by
the Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,--
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same
manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she
would have had if she had been a son;
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said
coparcenary property as that of a son,
and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall
be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a
coparcener:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall
affect or invalidate any disposition or alienation including any
partition or testamentary disposition of property which had
taken place before the 20th day of December, 2004.
(2) Any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by
virtue of sub-section (1) shall be held by her with the incidents
of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded,
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other
law for the time being in force in, as property capable of being
disposed of by her by testamentary disposition.
(3) Where a Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the
property of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara
law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, as
the case may be, under this Act and not by survivorship, and
the coparcenary property shall be deemed to have been
divided as if a partition had taken place and,--
(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as is allotted to a
son;
(b) the share of the predeceased son or a predeceased
daughter, as they would have got had they been alive at the
time of partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of
such predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter; and
(c) the share of the predeceased child of a predeceased son
or of a pre-deceased daughter, as such child would have got
had he or she been alive at the time of the partition, shall be
allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the pre-
deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case may
be.
Explanation. --For the purposes of this sub-section, the
interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to
be the share in the property that would have been allotted to
him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately
before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to
claim partition or not.
(4) After the commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to
proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the
recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-
grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under
the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to
discharge any such debt:
Provided that in the case of any debt contracted before the
commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect--
(a) the right of any creditor to proceed against the son,
grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or
(b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of,
any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be
enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same
manner and to the same extent as it would have been
enforceable as if the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005 had not been enacted.
Explanation. --For the purposes of clause (a), the
expression "son", "grandson" or "great-grandson" shall be
deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the
case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the
commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition,
which has been effected before the 20th day of December,
2004.
Explanation. --For the purposes of this section "partition"
means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition
duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908)
or partition effected by a decree of a court."
27. Section 6(1) of the Act of 1956 bestowed certain rights to the daughter
as coparcener by birth in Joint Hindu Family Property governed by
Mitakshara Law. Date of commencement was 09-09-2005. Vide Section
6(5) an exception is carved out in which any partition which has been
effected before 20-12-2004 would be out of the purview of the
Amendment Act, 2005 and resultantly impact of Section 6. At the same
time expression "Partition" was clarified, meaning thereby any
partition made by execution of deed of a partition duly registered under
the Registration Act, 1908 or partition effect by a decree of Court. Perusal
of Section 6(1) and its proviso indicates that any disposition or alienation
including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which
had taken place before 20-12-2004 would not be disturbed or invalided
and some what in similar manner Section 6(5) is reiterated but an
explanation has been attached in which the expression partition has
been clarified for the purpose of Section 6.
28. In the present case no partition was ever taken and said fact is reflected
in the discussion made by the trial Court while framing issue No.1 (a)
and (b) as well as issue No.2. Right from para 8 to para 37, trial Court
discussed the pleadings, submissions and evidence and concluded that
no partition on 10-04-1987 was ever taken place.
29. In fact, plaintiff at all places denied the execution of partition/family
settlement dated 10-04-1987 and even in her cross-examination (in para
50) she categorically denied about execution of such partition between
all family members.
30. Defendant No.1 earlier filed a suit vide Ex-D/1 against defendant No.1
in which she categorically pleaded that no partition has ever taken place
in respect of disputed property. Now defendant No.3 in the present
litigation filed written statement in which she did not mention the said
admission and claimed that partition has taken place. Incidentally,
defendant No.1 in his written statement did not mention this fact that
partition has ever taken place but in earlier litigation wherein defendant
No.3 filed civil suit in which defendant No.1 filed written statement
(vide Ex-P/1) in which he admitted the fact that no partition has ever
taken place in respect of disputed property. Therefore, defendant No.1 in
fact reconciled with the fact that no such partition on 10-04-1987 taken
place. It is settled in law that admission is best piece of evidence unless
successfully retracted {See: Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram
Iccharam alias Brijram and others, AIR 1974 SC 471, Executive
Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust, Virudhunagar
Vs. Chandran and others, (2017) 3 SCC 702}.
31. Trial Court also sifted the evidence and after considering the evidence
of defendant No.1 Jayendra Awad (DW-1) and Laxman Rao Patil
(DW-2) concluded that their testimony is not reliable enough to
establish the fact that partition has ever taken place. Witness Laxman
Rao Patil (DW-2) appeared very tentative and uncertain about the course
of events. Even otherwise when the factum of execution of partition was
raised by the defendants side then onus was on the defendants to prove
that partition took place on 10-04-1987 and trial Court in specific term
concluded that partition never took place on 10-04-1987 and being
daughter of late Sambhaji Rao Awad plaintiff was entitled to get share to
the extent of 1/4th as per effect of the Amendment Act, 2005 and Section
6 of the Act of 1956.
32. Once it is established that no partition took place in Joint Hindu Family
Property in the present case then as per effect of Section 6 of the
Amendment Act, 2005 plaintiff became entitled for getting 1/4th share as
one of the coparceners in the said property. True it is, that the Apex
Court in the case of Prakash & Ors. (supra) considered the case and
found the amendment prospective in nature and therefore, remanded the
matter back but in the present case partition never took place, therefore,
on that count plaintiff had a good case. Even otherwise, controversy has
been concluded recently by the Three Judge Bench of Apex Court in the
case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), it has been categorically found that
amendment would include all those Joint Hindu Family Properties
which are to be partitioned. Amendment Act, 2005 would encompass
Joint Hindu Family Property where partition in specific term as per
registered sale deed or decree of Court has not taken place. Relevant
extract of conclusion are in following paras which deserves reiteration:
"137. Resultantly, we answer the reference as under:
137.1. The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener
on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same
manner as son with same rights and liabilities.
137.2. The rights can be claimed by the daughter born
earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in
Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or
testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th
day of December, 2004.
137.3. Since the right in coparcenary is by birth, it is not
necessary that father coparcener should be living as on
9.9.2005.
137.4. The statutory fiction of partition created by proviso to
Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally
enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption
of coparcenary. The fiction was only for the purpose of
ascertaining share of deceased coparcener when he was
survived by a female heir, of Class I as specified in the
Schedule to the Act of 1956 or male relative of such female.
The provisions of the substituted Section 6 are required to be
given full effect. Notwithstanding that a preliminary decree
has been passed the daughters are to be given share in
coparcenary equal to that of a son in pending proceedings
for final decree or in an appeal.
137.5. In view of the rigor of provisions of Explanation to
Section 6(5) of the Act of 1956, a plea of oral partition
cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of
partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under
the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a
decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea
of oral partition is supported by public documents and
partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had
been affected by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A
plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be
accepted and to be rejected outrightly."
33. Taking guidance from the above order passed by the Apex Court, there is
no iota of doubt exists that dictum of Apex Court is applicable ditto in
the present set of facts.
34. Here in the present case, after appreciation of evidence, trial Court
specifically concluded that no such partition has ever taken place and
said finding in absence of any material contrary to it cannot be set aside
and deserves to be affirmed. Therefore, once no partition has ever taken
place in respect of disputed properties then dictum of Apex Court apply
in full force. No other view is possible in the present facts and
circumstances of the case.
35. This Court does not intend to reiterate the evidence part discussed by the
trial Court from para 8 to 37 as same would be repetitive and more so
that aspect was earlier considered by the Division Bench of this Court
also at length in the present first appeal while passing the judgment
dated 30-09-2011. Since remand of case by Apex Court was for limited
purpose regarding applicability of Amendment Act, 2005 and same has
been subsequently clarified by the Apex Court in the case of Vineeta
Sharma (supra), therefore, this Court has no hesitation that trial Court
did not err in passing the impugned judgment and decree and rightly
decreed the suit. Respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled for preliminary
decree of declaration, partition and injunction as decreed by the trial
Court because provisions of the substituted Section 6 are directed to be
given full effect as per the mandate of Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma
(supra)
36. Heard on I.A.No.1773/2021 application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC
filed on 15-03-2021 also.
Through this application, appellant wants to amend the pleadings
in the written statement on the ground that since son and father became
equal share holder in the Joint Hindu Family Property, therefore, being
son appellant would receive 50% of the father's share as class -I heir of
the father as per Section 8 and as per explanation to section 6 of the Act
of 1956. According to learned counsel for appellant due to inadvertence,
said ground could not have been taken in the memo of appeal, therefore,
by way of amendment application, appellant wants to amend the
pleadings in appeal.
37. Both the parties were heard on the said application also.
38. Perusal of the amendment application indicates that this ground was
available to the appellant since beginning and even more prominently
after Amendment Act, 2005 but neither he preferred to amend the
pleadings before the trial Court nor at appellate stage where appeal was
pending for more than 12 years and at the fag end of hearing, this
application has been preferred. As such this is not the pleadings of
facts but are pleadings of law which otherwise could have been raised by
the appellant and in fact raised in his submissions and arguments
therefore, purpose of filing of this application appears to be outlived and
misconceived, hence rejected.
39. Earlier applications vide I.A.No.2795/2011 and I.A.No.2796/2011
under Order VI Rule 17 and XLI Rule 27 of CPC respectively were
considered by the trial Court and rejected, therefore, reasons assigned in
the said application are adopted by this Court while deciding these
applications and on considering their contents even otherwise no case is
made out to allow the said applications, therefore, both applications
stand rejected.
40. Consequently, judgment of preliminary decree passed by the trial Court
is hereby affirmed and appeal stands dismissed. As per the direction
given by the trial Court, partition be made in metes and bounds and
consequential follow up action in pursuance to preliminary decree be
carried out so that final decree can be prepared as per law.
41. Appeal stands dismissed.
(Anand Pathak)
Judge
Anil*
ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
2022.06.15
07:22:59
-07'00'
