Facts

1. The respondent, plaintiff, Smt. Sushila wife of Gyanchand Kataria, filed Special Civil Suit No. 129 of 1987 in the Court of Civil Judge [Senior Division], Chandrapur, for a declaration, partition and separate possession. In the suit, she stated that Jethmalji, who died in November, 1956, left behind his widow Smt. Heerabai, her step-son, Rekchandji. Smt. Heerabai died on 30th June, 1983, and was a member of Hindu Joint Family with Rekchand, possessing undivided immovable and movable properties. For the purpose of partition, Schedules-A and B were the properties, immovable and movable attached with the plaint. Rekchand died on 20th January, 1980, leaving behind his widow, Smt. Madankunwar and three daughters, namely Smt. Sharadkunwar, Smt. Shantakunwar and Smt. Sushila, the plaintiff. Rekchand had no son and, therefore, the defendant no.4 Deepakkumar was adopted as a son, for which plaintiff, Sushila, had a reservation. Further, according to the plaintiff, Smt. Heerabai executed her last Will, duly attested on 18th October, 1981, and bequeathed her half share in all the joint family properties to her as shown in Schedules-A and B. Defendant no.1, Smt. Madankunwar, being her natural mother, she was allowed to receive rents etc., in respect of the properties bequeathed to her due to love and affection. However, taking advantage of her goodness, defendant no.1 started alienating the properties, though orally requested by the plaintiff not to do so and, in fact, sold some properties to defendant no.5, which caused loss to her. Defendant no.3 sold a plot admeauring 2954 sq.ft., to defendant no.5 with a building thereon at Mouza Saoli. It was under those circumstances, she wanted to claim partition in the joint family properties with separate possession. The plaintiff then contended that her prayers for partition should, therefore, be accepted by the Court. With these pleadings, the suit was instituted on 13th November, 1987. The defendant nos. 1 to 4 filed their Written Statement to the suit, and denied all the allegations, including the execution of the Will dated 18th October, 1981 by Smt. Heerabai, so also that she had a half share in the joint family properties. In the Special Pleadings in the Written Statement, it was stated that Rekchandji died on 20th January, 1980. The Will of Heerabai was fabricated. The alleged Lease-Deed dated 30th July, 1982, executed by Smt. Heerabai in favour of plaintiff, was also false. As to the execution of Will dated 18th October, 1981, Smt. Jatanbai, the other widow of Dhanraj Parakh was alive, who died on 3rd November, 1982, which falsified the making of Will dated 18th October, 1981. On 20th November, 1982, a Family Settlement Deed was executed between plaintiff and defendants and late Heerabai. Thereafter, on 21st April, 1983, defendant no.4, Deepak, was adopted as a son of late Rekchandji by registered Adoption-Deed as per consent of all the family members, relatives and friends. Before execution of Adoption Deed, there was a partition of joint properties between defendant nos. 1 to 3 and late Heerabai on 9th January, 1982. The plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 238 of 1984, which was pending. In that suit, no mention about the Will dated 18th October, 1981 was at all made and the Will was being brought to light by the plaintiff for the first time on 13th November, 1987. The Family Settlement dated 20th November, 1982 as well as Memorandum of Partition dated 9th January, 1983 do not even remotely make a mention of the alleged earlier Will dated 18th October, 1981, though late Heerabai was a party to both the instruments and had put her thumb impressions. The properties shown in Schedules A and B were recorded in the names of the defendants to the full knowledge of the plaintiff and still she kept silent till 13th November, 1987. She was given property worth Rs. 50 lakhs in the Family Settlement dated 20th November, 1982, and had nothing to claim from the joint Hindu