https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286036 The court held that the properties were joint family properties amenable for partition as they were acquired through joint family efforts. It ruled that there was no settlement or partition in 1942 as claimed by the defendants due to inconsistencies in evidence. The suit was not barred by limitation as there was no evidence of exclusion of plaintiffs from joint family properties. Properties in plaint 'B' and 'C' schedules were deemed joint family properties, entitling the plaintiffs and the 9th defendant to shares. A preliminary decree for partition was granted, and both appeals were allowed with costs. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:36:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286036 The court held that the properties were joint family properties amenable for partition as they were acquired through joint family efforts. It ruled that there was no settlement or partition in 1942 as claimed by the defendants due to inconsistencies in evidence. The suit was not barred by limitation as there was no evidence of exclusion of plaintiffs from joint family properties. Properties in plaint 'B' and 'C' schedules were deemed joint family properties, entitling the plaintiffs and the 9th defendant to shares. A preliminary decree for partition was granted, and both appeals were allowed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286036