The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act regarding the devolution of interest in coparcenary property and the rights of separated sons. The judgment emphasizes the principles of partition and the limitations on the rights of separated coparceners.

JUDGMENT :

Appellants/plaintiffs (Legal Representatives of the original appellant/plaintiff Girdhari) have preferred this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 16.07.1997 passed by the First Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Tikamgarh in Civil Appeal No. 27-A/1989.

2. The appellate court decided the appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reversed the finding given by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 92-A/1988, which was decided vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.1989.

3. This appeal was heard on admission and vide order dated 19.02.1998, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether, the son, who has separated after partition, can claim a share in the coparcenary property of the father and another son, who remained joint after partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act?

2. Whether, the suit was rightly held to be barred by limitation by the lower appellate court?

Thereafter, by order dated 07.11.1998, the High Court granted stay, recorded undertaking that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not alienate the suit property during pendency of appeal.

4. To adjudicate the appeal on the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, it is necessary to consider the facts of the case in brief, which are as under:

5. The original appellant Girdhari Lodhi and late Nanhe Lodhi were the real brother and they were son of late Tanse Lodhi. Late Nanhe Lodi was unmarried and died without leaving any legal heir and Tanse Lodhi also died. During lifetime of Tanse, who was dealing with the coparcenary property as a Karta of the family, an oral partition took place somewhere in the year 1972 among them and in the said partition, plaintiff Girdhari Lodhi and Tanse were given the land of Village Bachoda and Nanhe was given the land of Village Phuter Chakra. Tanse and Girdhari resided jointly and they formed a joint family. After the death of Tanse in the year 1975, Nanhe sold some portion of the land of Village Bachoda by a registered sale deed dated 12.04.1979 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein.

6. A suit was filed by Girdhari for declaration and injunction. The declaration was sought that the sale deed executed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by Nanhe on 12.04.1979 be declared null and void because the land of Village Bachoda owned and possessed by Girdhari, and Nanhe had no right to execute the sale deed in relation to the land of Village Bachoda. As per the plaintiff-Girdhari, by way of an oral partition took place in 1972, one share was given to his father Tanse and him and another was given to Nanhe. The land of Village Bachoda described in para 3 of the plaint came in the share of Tanse and Girdhari and the land of Village Phuter Chakra described in para 4 of the plaint came in the share of Nanhe. As per the plaintiff-Girdhari, after the death of Tanse, Nanhe could not claim any share in the said property because originally the property of Village Bachoda and Phuter Chakra was being managed by Tanse and the said property was partitioned between Tanse, Girdhari and Nanhe and as such they owned and used the property in question and acted on the said partition. Nanhe got the land of Village Phuter Chakra in his share and, therefore, whatever right he had acquired that was over the land which came in his share i.e. Phuter Chakra. Therefore, the plaintiff sought declaration to declare the sale deed executed by Nanhe in respect of the land relating to Village Bachoda null and void.

7. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and taken a stand that the land of village Phuter Chakra purchased by Nanhe by his own and, therefore, the said land was not the part of coparcenary property, but the land of Village Bachoda was the coparcenary pr