The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to a share in the property is determined based on the validity of the partition deed and the applicability of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Z.A. Haq, J.

1. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri S.R. Deshpande, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2(A). The appeal is filed by the original defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Courts granting decree in favour of the original respondent No. 1/plaintiff upholding his entitlement for 1/9th share in the suit property.

2. The original respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed the Civil Suit contending that Shri Balaji Sadashiv had two wives - Sundarabai and Ginabai, Balaji had five sons and four daughters out of which the respondent No. 1/plaintiff, the respondent No. 2/original defendant No. 3 and the respondent No. 3/original defendant No. 5 were from Sundarabai and rest of the brothers and sisters were from Ginabai. The original respondent No. 1/plaintiff pleaded that his father died intestate. It was pleaded that in the partition between Balaji Sadashiv, Digambar - original defendant No. 2, Jagannath - original defendant No. 1 and Vishwanath - original defendant No. 4 in 1976, Shri Balaji Sadashiv was allotted the suit property. It was pleaded that after Balaji Sadashiv, original respondent No. 1/plaintiff succeeded to 1/9th share in the suit property, he demanded partition accordingly from the defendants, however, his request was not acceded to and the suit was filed praying for decree for partition and separate possession in respect of 1/9th share of the suit property.

3. The original defendant Nos. 6, 7 and 8 did not defend the Civil Suit and remained absent in spite of service and the trial Court proceeded ex parte against them. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, the original defendant No. 9 died.

4. The original defendant Nos. 3 and 5 filed their separate written statements. The original defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 9 had filed their common written statement. The contesting defendants admitted the relationship between the original plaintiff and the original defendants. However, they opposed the claim of the plaintiff as made in the Civil Suit. The defendants denied that the suit property was owned by Shri Balaji Sadashiv. The defendants pleaded that the suit property was the subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No. 139/1957, in which a partition took place as per the compromise and the suit property was allotted to their branch.

The learned trial Judge proceeded with the Civil Suit and by the judgment dated 6th July, 1993 concluded that the original plaintiff proved that the suit property was separate property of deceased Balaji Sadashiv having been allotted in the family partition. The learned trial Judge concluded that the suit property was allotted to the branch of original defendant No. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 139/1957, including the share of Balaji Sadashiv. The learned trial Judge held that the original plaintiff is entitled for 1/9th share in the suit property and granted decree for partition and separate possession.

5. The appellants filed the appeal before the District Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge by the judgment dated 30th November, 1994 maintained the findings recorded by the trial Court and after independently considering the pleadings and evidence on the record held that the original plaintiff proved that he is entitled for 1/9th share in the suit property. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Courts have filed this appeal.

6. This Court had issued notice in 1996 and granted stay as prayed for by the appellants. The appeal came to be admitted by the order dated 15th January, 1998 and interim order was continued.

When this appeal was called out for final hearing, I noticed that the substantial questions of law are not formulated. After hearing the learned Advocates, the substantial questions of law were for