app¢::a1*i11g £531′ tha appeiiaxxts to c01§.$idg1′ £23.
apgmal ma:-31333 3dI}}iSSi{)I1 and as-._i_j.ca w1ir:.t11i33′ 2111§¥”‘§’1;§2;iVjta113tia}A
questiorl of law ariscs for crz::13§tiV€e:”:a;i1’011 “i1=’1 t}’1is §a}}})ea}.
Bcfon: adveiflzag to this ‘a,§j’;:ect.’i3-f’ :f}1Vé’«1:x:=g_fl€::*, it is IEECESS-f–‘3J’_Y
ts: notice the i)1ieff’ac::t.;a in
3. con tmading
that the ‘sfit the ancestral joint
fa111iiy*’ ~ The Said pmpcrtties am said
to have }C}Ef,l€f_1 :!’£j} the.’ Deepa Jana Tandei and on
his death 3:311 flit: same devalvcd on his chiidmil
‘ix: ,Vi”‘I3s=’«: and cicfendants to the suit. It is in that
i;:@ziVt;:fitV,’ . ” (;2:mtc11d.-3 that being one <:vf the
daugh':t:r:rs.~ is entitled to 1/12" share: in the said
E' Tilt: p11:)p¢31'fiy in questicm is 8}: N13. 1 18/ 2 csf
Biuagafffllage and ma houscts and an out-h€:n.1s4?: Sit2.lé?1f.€3d in
't"ht: $a1'¢:I hand, It was ads-3 Colltzmded by the p1ai:£1tifi' mat: the
V j§a:ici pxuperiies wan: aCq1Ii1'f3d by their (Ea-vmnnltitlxt fer the Saa
Bixti Pltrejaci for iimiltiixag Naval and the t::t)mpa12sati011
~13.
was awaxti ed by awaxfl dated 09,031,993. it is A’
31316:. ;:slai11i:ifi’ that 3 sum of Rs,2,88,778f — was ‘
plaiixlitifi” thernzrfore claims a poitien csf ‘s.s=;_id. C£:m§e;1_;3aVfiéi11
amounting to 1/12*’? shalt: which
pzvpexfieg and fi1e:1*ei¥:;-re, the suitwaa-3 iI1Sfi’£’T¥1.i”.VCf§.,
4, The; ..}’3t:;3I1g .’V’11;)t?§ifie1i1′, appeared and
disputet:I___th§:_ Qgi I115; p1ai11i:ifi”. Apart fmm
contcndfizg i_”_’:1zr::t,V 11:31: be clairitlcd to a sizare
siuct: she héilig’f€1!iaitE”§h6iIfa»id 119: 113126 3 share in the hmme
p1t)p(:;rji:§’i11 View 23 Gfthe Hixzwitl S11(:*c¢:3sio11 Act, it
$333350 };:.§1}i;é11§ied by the dt.=:fe1::d.a1::i:s that ‘$216 houses wen:
Ci3*1}Sii11%3isEi:i7″ earnings of Hmiu hen, the father of
ciefe11i:3.a11t;§ ‘3 6 and éhczefoxwa, the said houses wait the
‘ “‘–__VSiE:1f’~;’;1cq_1..1i2rt:«:é:I p§.”i.Jp6}’ii€5 of Hecru and the plaiutifi’ wauld not
tfflfifififi to a share in the pmpcrtics.
ES. T115 Trial C-o1I1’t taking note of the zrivai cm1t;311ti0113
put forfiz befcm: it, flamed as many as eight iasues 3131′ its
J;
‘C
8. In older to consider the ” in V
whether the same weak! form a qeeafitrfi -of’
for the present appeal, the
presented by the “iris as if
the plaintifi” was bcfoze fiat; a shame in the
said pmperty by ” exists. In
fact the the was befirsme the
ma; belonged to the joint
family the plaintiff was under the
bemafide fifipiessien deiimdant being the male
member” wouiéi ‘;:eoeived the compensation and
tIfie«e_§:11x1t)u1’é1″t; to all these who were entitled and
not been done, the pIaint1’fi’ was before
the for a share in the compensation 1t’€€:t:iVCd
” her share to the pm-petty which she claimed
V’ 111% Share. Considering the fact that the plaintiff was
:b’¢v;fg§-1’c the Trial Ccmrt with a definite mac by contending that
, :she believed that on receipt of the oempensation, the same
J»
I”-.