2018 (10) TMI 2067

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hallenging his status as the adopted son of their parents and prayed for the decree for partition. Though they failed to prove their claim that there was no adoption, the trial court granted decree for partition. It was held that suit properties were ancestral properties. By notional partition, the present appellant, who was defendant No. 1 got one-half share alongwith his deceased father, and the share of deceased father was further bifurcated into one-third each, thereby the present appellant got two-third share and two sisters got one-sixth share each. After the judgment, granting preliminary decree dated 15.12.2004, the two sisters (plaintiffs) moved an application for enhancement of their shares, in view of amendment in the Hindu Succe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., following substantial questions of law are framed: (i) Whether the learned first appellate court has ignored the settled principles of law and the fact of pendency of review petition as the cause for the delay? (ii) What order? My findings on these questions are as under: (i) In the affirmative; (ii) The appeal is allowed as per final order. 7. By consent of learned advocates for the parties, appeal is taken up for final hearing. From the facts on record, it is abundantly clear that the preliminary decree passed initially was in favour of the present appellant, getting two-third share, which was subsequently modified and his share was decreased to one-third. He was thereby aggrieved. It is obvious....