Shasidhar v. Ashwini Uma Mathad

JUDGMENT

The appellants are defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs are the respondents. The respondents are the children of the 1st appellant born in the wedlock between 1 appellant and his divorced wife Smt. Uma Mathad. It is admitted fact that the 1 appellant has married the 2nd respondent after the divorce and in the wedlock he has two children and they are appellant Nos. 3 and 4. The suit properties at item Nos. 1 and 4 are admitted to be the ancestral properties. Item Nos. 2 and 3 are the properties belonging to the mother of the 1 appellant and after her demise the said properties are bequeathed to 1 appellant. Therefore, the said properties acquired the status of self-acquired properties.

2. The respondents filed a suit for partition. The parties are governed by Bombay School of Hindu Law. In view of the provisions of Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to a share as a co-parceners in the ancestral properties. The wife who is the second appellant also would be entitled to a share in the partition. In that view, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will have 1/4th share each in item Nos. 1 and 4 of the suit properties.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants 2 to 4 would not claim any independent share in item Nos. 1 and 4 of the suit properties, but they would take share in the 1/4 share allotted to their father.

4. In view of the said submissions, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled, to 1/4 share in item Nos. 1 and 4 of the suit properties.

5. Accordingly, a preliminary decree to be drawn and the appeal and cross objections are disposed of in the terms indicated above.

ORDER ON I.A.I/2013

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By this application, learned counsel for the cross-objectors seeking correction of the judgment dated 06.12.2012, in which, at four places in first four paragraphs, while describing the suit properties, Item No. 5 was wrongly typed as Item No. 4 being the ancestral property. Learned counsel for the appellants has no objection for correcting the figure ‘4’ at all the four places in respect of suit properties as ‘5’.

Office is accordingly directed to issue fresh copy of the order to the parties after carrying-out the corrections.