JUDGMENT :. This second appeal is at the instance of the defendants against whom a decree has been passed by the first appellate court. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendants.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal arc as follows -

One Arjuna Ragho was a resident of village Padmapur. He had four sons by name Bholu, Zolu, Udhav and Madhav. His widow Laxmibai expIred in the year 1968. Bholu, Zolu and Udhav are also dead. The plaintlff is the daughter of Zolu while the defendants are the heirs of Udhav and Madhav. Bholu died issueless. The pedigree of the family is as follows -

Arjuna

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laxmibai Bholu(son) Zolu(son) Udhav Madhav

(Window) (deceased) (deceased) (son) (son)

expired dead

On 18-9-68. ------------------------

Vithabai Gayabai Ramdas

(daughter) (wife) Namdeo (son) Plaintiff Mala (daug.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Devidas (son) Taibai (daughter) Sitabai (widow)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jijabai (wife) Vinod (son) Vikas (son) Ku. Surekha

(daughter)

3, Arujuna had left behind him the property as described in the plaint paragraph no.2. The plaintiff submits that it was the Hindu joint family property. There was no partition amongst Arjuna and his sons. The plaintiff being daughter of Zolu has 1/3rd share. The plaintiff, after her marriage, started residing at Padampur and was culti vating land survey No.20. Although there was no partition, the plaintiff was cultivating survey No.20 while defendant no.13 and deceased Udhav were cultivating and possessing the land separately. The plaintiff was in possession until 1984-85. Thereafter, taking advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiff, the defendants removed the name of the plaintiff from the revenue record. Defendants no. 1 and 13 had got their names mutated in respect of the suit property. It is alleged that the land has been acquired by defendant no.15 and a compensation of Rs.95.612/- has been received by defendant no.13 without the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that she has 1/3rd share in the suit property and therefore, prays for declaration that the suit property is the joint property of plaintiff and defendants, and plaintiff has 1/3rd share in it and defendant no.15 be restrained from making payment of 1/3rd share. She also prayed for cancellation of employment granted to the other defendants by defendant no.15.

4. The suit was resisted by defendant nos.1 to 14 by filing their written-statement. The defendants denied that the plaintiff is the heir of deceased Arjuna. They, however, admit relationship of defendants with deceased Arjuna but in the subsequent paragraph, the defendants do admit the genealogical tree. It is contended by the defendants that the plaintiff could not be heir of deceased Zolu and she has no share as claimed by her. The defendants deny the allegations as are made by the plaintiff. The defendants contend that Arjuna died in 1936 while Zolu died in 1935. The property was acquired by Udhav and not by Arjuna. Udhav died in 1986. The widow of Arjuna died in 1968. The defendants contend that since the plaintiff is not the heir of Zolu, she could not succeed to the estate of Zolu.

5. Defendant no. 15 had filed written statement and denied

Click Here to Read the rest of this document