IMPORTANT POINT
Before an acquisition can be claimed to be a separate property, it must be shown that it was made without any aid or assistance from ancestral or joint family property.

Bela M. Trivedi, J.— The appellant-plaintiff has preferred the appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC challenging the judgment & decree dated 26.7.1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur City, Court No.7 (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Civil Suit No.86/76 [64/80], so far as the findings recorded by the trial court relating to the issue Nos. 1, 2 & 4 are concerned. The respondents-defendants have filed their cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC in the appeal challenging the said decree, so far as the findings relating to the issue Nos.3, 5 & 7 are concerned.

2. The appellant plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondents-defendants seeking partition and her l/8th share in the immovable properties belonging to the HUF including the house bearing No.1182 situated at Natanion Ki Gali, Chora Rasta, Jaipur, and sought permanent injunction in respect of the movable properties described in the Schedules K & Kh annexed to the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint inter alia that Late Shri Niranjan Singh, husband of the appellant plaintiff, was the eldest son of the defendant No.1 Sardar Nanak Singh. The said Niranjan Singh expired on 18.2.1976 at Jaipur. According to the plaintiff, before the partition i.e. 1947, the whole family of the defendants including Shri Niranjan Singh were staying at Multan (Pakistan), where they had some properties belonging to the HUF (Hindu Undivided Family) of which the defendant No.1 was the ‘karta’. After the partition, the whole family came to India leaving their properties in Pakistan, for which the defendant No.1 was given the compensation to the tune of about Rs.35,000 under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act 1950. The defendant No.1 thereafter purchased the residential house bearing No.1182 at the Natanion Ki Gali, Jaipur and other properties from the said amount of compensation received by him as the karta of HUF. It was further case of the plaintiff that initially the said house No.1182 was occupied by the tenants, and therefore the family of defendant No.1 was staying in a rented premises, and after sometime part of the said house having been vacated, the plaintiff and her husband Niranjan Singh had started staying over there. Thereafter, the remaining part having been vacated by the tenants, the defendants had also come to stay in the said house. It was also case of the plaintiff that during the said period, her husband Niranjan Singh was working in the Sachivalaya, Jaipur and had his own independent income. On the death of her husband Niranjan Singh on 18.2.1976, the defendants started misbehaving with the plaintiff and tried to take possession of the movable properties purchased by the plaintiff and her husband from their own income. The defendant No.1 also refused to part with the amount of insurance policy, in which he was mentioned as nominee. According to the plaintiff, the said house bearing No.1182 and other immovable properties having been purchased from the nucleus of the HUF, the plaintiff had 1/8th share in the said properties. Hence the said suit, claiming her share in the immovable properties, and seeking the permanent injunction in respect of the movable properties was filed.

3. The respondents-defendants had resisted the said suit by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and contending inter alia that the defendant No.1 had received only Rs.650 by way of compensation from the ancestral properties at Pakistan, and that the house bearing No.1182 was purchased by the defendant No.1 not from the said funds of HUF but from his own income, and therefore the said property was the self acquired property of the defendant No.1. The defendants had also denied the allegations levelled against them with regard to the movable properties and the insurance policies as alleged in the plaint. The trial court from the pleadings of the parties framed following seven issues:

(Matter in Hindi)

4