https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282563 The court held that Ext. P-1 was ineffective as a Will and as a partition deed. It did not constitute a family arrangement due to lack of consent from all affected members. However, it resulted in the disruption of joint family status, leading the sons of the first wife to hold the property as tenants-in-common. The plaintiff was granted a 1/4 share in the A schedule properties, and the suit was decreed accordingly. The claims to B and C schedule properties were rightly dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed, and a preliminary decree was issued in favor of the plaintiff for the A schedule properties. en-us Wed, 27 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:11:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282563 The court held that Ext. P-1 was ineffective as a Will and as a partition deed. It did not constitute a family arrangement due to lack of consent from all affected members. However, it resulted in the disruption of joint family status, leading the sons of the first wife to hold the property as tenants-in-common. The plaintiff was granted a 1/4 share in the A schedule properties, and the suit was decreed accordingly. The claims to B and C schedule properties were rightly dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed, and a preliminary decree was issued in favor of the plaintiff for the A schedule properties. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282563