Karnataka High Court
Sri Annappa Laxman Kakatkar vs Sri Yuvaraj Laxman Kakatkar on 2 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.770 OF 2006 (PAR)
BETWEEN
1. SRI. ANNAPPA LAXMAN KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM
2. SMT. SNEHALATHA @ NARMADA
PANDURANG BHATKANDE
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. C/O. PANDURANG BHATKANDE,
BOMBAY ENGINEERING WORK,
KEERKI, PUNE.
3. SMT. NANDUTAI RAVAJI KHEMANE
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. HINDALGA,
TALUK AND DIST: BELGAUM.
4. SRI. GAJANAN ANNAPPA KAKATKAR
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND BELGAUM.
5. SRI SHARAD ANNAPPA KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. HINDALGA,
TALUK AND DIST: BELGAUM.
6. SMT. SHEVANTA
W/O. BHARAMA KANGRALKAR,
2
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SHIVAJI GALLI,
KANGRALI KHURD,
TQ AND DIST: BELGAUM.
7. SRI. PARASHARAM
S/O. BHARAMA KANGARALKAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIVAJI GALLI,
KANGRALI KHURD,
TQ AND DIST: BELGAUM.
8. SRI. KALLAPPA
S/O. BHARAMA KANGRALKAR,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIVAJI GALLI, KANGRALI KHURD,
TQ AND DIST: BELGAUM.
9. SRI. PARASHARAM YALLAPPA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SAMBAJI GALLI,
NEAR KALMESHWAR TEMPLE,
KANGRALI KHURD, BELGAUM
10. SRI. GUNDU YALLAPPA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SAMBAJI GALLI,
NEAR KALMESHWAR TEMPLE,
KANGRALI KHURD, BELGAUM
11. SRI. KRISHNA YALLAPPA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SAMBAJI GALLI,
NEAR KALMESHWAR TEMPLE,
KANGRALI KHURD, BELGAUM
12. SRI. BASAVANT NINGAPPA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANGRALI K.H.,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM
3
13. SMT. MALLAVVA NAGOJI PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. KANGRALI K.H.,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM
14. SRI. LAXMANA NAGOJI PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANGRALI K.H.,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM
15. SRI. KEDARI NAGOJI PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANGRALI K.H.,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM
16. KUM. RESHMA NAGOJI PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANGRALI K.H.,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM
17. SRI. RAMA JOTIBA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANGRALI K.H.,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASHTRY, SRI R. M. KULKARNI,
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLLI AND MISS. SURABHI KULKARNI,
ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANTS 1 TO 4;
SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, SRI. AKSHAY KATTI AND
SRI. ANAND ASHTEKAR, ADVOCATES FOR APPELLANTS 6 TO 17)
AND
1. SRI. YUVARAJ LAXMAN KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR, AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM,
4
2. SMT. UJWALA
W/O UTTAM KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM,
3. SRI. UDAY UTTAM KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM.
4. SRI. UKRANTI UTTAM KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM,
5. SRI. ULHAS UTTAM KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST:BELGAUM,
6D. SMT. RENUKA
W/O. KALLAYYA SONALKAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BHRAMHLING GALLI,
BHAHADHARWADI,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM
6E. SMT. MANGAL
W/O. VIJAY DOLEKAR,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KHADARWADI,
POST: PIRANWADI,
TQ AND DIST: BELGAUM.
7. SMT. SUGANDHA
W/O DHANAPAL KAKATKAR
5
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM.
8. SMT. SAVITA DHANAPAL KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM.
9. SMT VAISHALI DHANAPAL KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM.
10. KIRAN DHANAPAL KAKATKAR
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HINDALGA,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M KHARVI, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5
AND R7 TO R10)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC praying to set aside the
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.12.2005 IN R.A.NO.23/1999
PASSED BY THE FILE OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
BELGAUM, CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.12.1998 IN O.S.NO.265/1985 PASSED BY THE THE II-
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) BELGAUM AND THE SAID SUIT
BE DISMISSED AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS
THROUGHOUT.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
6
JUDGMENT
This captioned regular second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendants 2, 4 and 5, who are the children of defendant No.1-Laxman, whereas defendants 15 and 16, are the children of defendant No.2 are are prosecuting this appeal as legatees based on a Will executed by defendant No.1-Laxman. The present appeal is also filed by appellants 6 to 17, who are claiming to be the purchasers of suit item No.10 to 14 properties. It is also relevant to note here that pending consideration of this appeal, appellants 6 to 14 have got themselves transposed as appellants and are contesting along with other defendants.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under; Deceased respondent No.1 i.e. Yuvaraj, the father of defendants 12 to 14 and the husband of defendant No.11 namely Dhanapal filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.265/1985. The plaintiffs 7 specifically contended that suit item No.1 to 5 properties are the ancestral properties. They further pleaded and contended that suit item No.6 to 9 properties were purchased out of joint family funds in the name of defendant No.2 as he was managing the family affairs. Plaintiffs further specifically contended that defendant No.1 has alienated suit item No.10 to 14 properties without there being any legal necessity and therefore, the plaintiffs filed the present suit. On receipt of summons, the present appellants 1 to 5 contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendants 1 and 2 specifically contended that suit item No.6 to 9 properties are self-acquired properties of defendant No.2. It was also specifically contended that suit item No.10 to 14 are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 and therefore, the defendants contended that the suit properties are not available for partition. Pending suit, defendant No.1-Laxman, who is ancestor of 8 plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5, died on 17.05.1988. However, the children of defendant No.2 namely Gajanan and Sharad who were arrayed as defendants 15 and 16 and the widow of Laxman namely Janabai produced Will and claimed that Laxman, during his lifetime, bequeathed his share in respect of suit item No.1 to 5 and also VPC No.308, which is not the subject matter of the partition suit. The purchasers, who were arrayed as defendants 6 to 10 also contested the proceedings by filing written statement. The purchasers i.e. defendants 6 to 10 specifically contended that defendant No.1-Laxman has sold suit item No.10 to 14 for legal necessity. There was specific averment made in the written statement that suit item No.10 to 14 are self-acquired properties of Laxman and Devappa and therefore, both have sold suit item No.10 to 14 properties, who had half share and therefore it was contended that the sale deeds executed by Laxman 9 and Devappa would not bind the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5.
3. The Trial Court based on the rival contentions, framed following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are the joint family properties?
2. Whether they further prove that they have got 1/5th share in the suit properties?
3. Do the plaintiffs prove that they have signed on the blank stamp paper and gave it to Jayawant Vaiju Naik as alleged in para 5 of the plaint?
4. Do the defendants 1 and 2 prove that the suit para 1A properties, at Sl.Nos.10 to 14, are the self acquired properties of Devappa Masanu Kakatkar, or defendant No.1 as alleged in para No.7 of the written statement of defendant No.1?10
5. Do defendants 1 and 2 prove that the suit R.S.Nos.123/1+2/2, R.S.No.123/1+2/1 and R.S.No.190 and Plot No.103 and R.S.No.195 of Hindalaga village are the self acquired properties of the defendant No.2?
6. Do they further prove that R.S.No.1/1 measuring 1½ guntas and vehicle bearing No.MYT.2231 are the self acquired properties of the defendant No.2?
7. Do defendants 1 and 2 prove that the land R.S.No.206/5 measuring 1 Acre 1 Gunta and R.S.No.225/3 measuring 1 Acre 14 guntas were given to the share of the defendant No.2?
8. Do the defendants 6 to 10 prove that they are bonafide purchasers for the value?
9. Is the Court fee paid proper?
10. What decree or order?11
Additional issues:
1. Whether the defendants 15 and 16 prove that during the lifetime of defendant No.1 he executed a registered Will deed in favour of them, defendant No.1A and 2, bequeathing the immovable properties as alleged in para 3 the written statement filed by them?
2. Whether the defendant No.3A to 3D are entitled for the share, if so, to what extent?
4. The Trial Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence answered Issue No.1 partly in affirmative and recorded a finding that only suit item No.1 to 5 and 10 to 14 are joint family ancestral properties. Insofar as suit item No.6 to 9 properties are concerned, the Trial Court recorded a finding that these are self-acquired properties of defendant No.2 and therefore, they are not available for partition. 12
5. While considering the claim of defendants 15, 16 and 1A, the Trial Court answered additional Issue No.1 in the negative and has recorded a finding that the legatees have failed to remove the suspicious circumstances and therefore, have failed to prove due execution of registered Will in their favour and therefore, the Trial Court has not excluded the share of Laxman having negatived the Will. The Trial Court has also negatived the contention of the purchasers and therefore has come to the conclusion that the sale deed executed by Laxman in favour of defendants 6 to 8 was not for legal necessity. However, since there was no contest by the purchasers, no issue is framed in regard to legal necessity. On these set of reasons, the Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit by granting 8/35th share to the plaintiffs.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, present appellants preferred an appeal 13 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court has concurred with the findings of the Trial Court.
7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, the appellants-defendants 1 to 5 who are asserting right on the basis of Will executed by Laxman and defendants 6 to 17, who are asserting and claiming right and title over the suit item No.10 to 14 properties are before this Court. This Court on 28.02.2007 was pleased to admit the appeal and formulated following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the courts below were justified in denying a share to the wife of the deceased first defendant while carving out the share to which the parties were entitled? -
Negative.
2. Whether the courts below were justified in holding that Exhibit D1-Will was not proved in as much as, the said finding ignores the admissions made by PW2?-Affirmative.
14
8. Today during the course of argument, this Court formulated one more substantial question of law No.3 to be considered by this Court in the case on hand, which reads as follows:
3. Whether the Courts below were justified in not declaring the sale deed valid to the extent of defendant No.1's legitimate share in the suit schedule properties i.e., suit Item Nos.10 to 14?-Negative.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the legatees would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the clinching evidence on record would clearly establish that the legatees i.e., defendants 15 and 16 have succeeded in removing suspicious circumstances by examining PW2 and there is a due compliance of requirement of proof of Will. Questioning the reasoning of the Courts below learned counsel appearing for the appellants would place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ganesan (D) Through 15 Lrs. Vs. Kalanjiam and others1 and submit to this Court that the law does not require the presence of attesting witness when the Will is being prepared.
10. To buttress his argument he would take this Court to the head note of the said judgment and contend that if testator has read out the contents of the Will to the attesting witness and if attesting witness having understood the contents of document has signed it, that would meet the statutory requirement as contemplated under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 68 of the Indian succession Act, 1925. On these set of grounds, he would submit to this Court that the concurrent finding of the Courts below recorded on additional Issue No.1 suffers from perversity and therefore, warrants interference at the hands of this Court.
1 AIR 2019 Supreme Court 5682 16
11. Learned counsel Sri Anand Ashtekar arguing in the same vein would submit to this Court that both the Courts erred in holding that suit Item No.10 to 14 are joint family ancestral properties. He would also submit to this Court that the clinching evidence on record would clearly establish that the ancestor of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 namely Laxman (defendant No.1) has sold suit schedule properties for legal necessity and it was for the benefit of the family. Therefore the sale made by ancestor Laxman in respect of suit Item No.10 to 14 properties would bind the plaintiffs and therefore these properties would not be available for partition.
12. In the alternate, Sri Anand Ashtekar would strenuously argue and contend before this Court that if this Court comes to conclusion that concurrent findings that suit Item No.10 to 14 are ancestral properties would not warrant interference at the hands of this Court then in that event the substantial question of law framed by 17 this Court has to be answered in the affirmative as the due execution of sale deeds are not in dispute. Therefore in absence of evidence indicating that they were self acquired properties and the sale was for legal necessity, at-least the Courts below ought to have proceeded to declare the sale deed valid to the extent of vendor's share i.e., the share of defendant No.1. On these set of grounds, the counsel appearing for appellants 6 to 17- purchasers would submit to this Court that the substantial question of law framed by this Court needs to be answered in the negative.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents-plaintiffs supporting the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Courts below would submit to this Court that the substantial question of law formulated by this Court ought to be answered in the negative. Taking this Court to the relevant cross- examination of PW2, he would submit to this Court that 18 the due execution of Will is not at all established by the legatees and the evidence of PW2 would negate the contentions canvassed by the legatees before this Court. He would submit to this Court that there is concurrent finding on Will. Both the Courts have held legatees have failed to prove due execution of Will and have also failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
14. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs. Insofar as suit Item No.6 to 9 properties are concerned, both the Courts have held that the said properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.2 and the said finding is not at all challenged by respondents-plaintiffs. Therefore the subject matter of the present second appeal is only suit Item No.1 to 5 and 10 to 14 properties. Insofar as suit Item No.1 to 5 properties are concerned, both the Courts 19 have concurrently held that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties and therefore this concurrent finding on fact would not warrant any interference under Section 100 of CPC.
15. The contention of the legatees before this Court is that they have adduced cogent and clinching evidence and the due execution is proved. However, both the Courts below have held that the due execution of Will is not proved. The legatees have placed reliance on judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Ganesan case (supra). However on perusal of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the said principles are not at all applicable to the present case on hand.
16. The relevant cross-examination of DW2 would clinch the issue insofar as due execution of Will is concerned. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the 20 portion of cross-examination of DW2, which reads as follows:
"The document was written on 31.12.1987. I do not know the day of the document. I was proceeding from Nehru Nagar to Shahapur, to attend the building work, of one Mr.Patil. I was proceeding at about 11 to 11.30 p.m. I did not see as to who were sitting in the office of the scribe, Tarihalkar. Tarihalkar and defendant No.1 called me. I have not seen who else were present at that time. I did not notice whether defendant No.2 was present at that time. When I was called, the entire document was written. My signature was obtained on the said document. I did not enquire about the nature of the document. I did not enquire about the contents of the same and I have not read it. I signed the document at about 1 p.m. I do not know as to when deceased defendant No.1 has signed on the said document. I did not notice about the certificate mentioned in the said document by 21 the Doctor. I did not visit the Sub-Register's office. After signing the document, I left the place. I did not enquire whether the document came to be registered or not."
17. If this part of the evidence of DW2 is taken into consideration, then principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra are not at all applicable to the present case on hand. That was a case where Will which was already prepared and infact read over to the attesting witness by the testator and it is after understanding the contents of Will, attesting witness signed it. Therefore, it was in this background, the Apex Court was of the view that there is due compliance of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act coupled with Section 68 of Indian Succession Act. But in the present case on hand, the evidence does not indicate that DW2 has signed as an attesting witness. If the culled out portion of cross-examination is examined, this Court would find that DW2 is not at all aware as to what are the 22 contents of the Will vide Ex.D1. He has also stated in unequivocal terms that he has not enquired about the nature of the document and he has neither read the contents nor contents were read over either by testator or scribe or any other person who were present on that day. Therefore, the evidence of attesting witness i.e., DW.2 does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which mandates that one of the attesting witness who is examined as to depose that the testator in his presence instructed and prepared the Will and after satisfaction and having understood the contents of the Will and signed the Will in presence of the attesting witnesses and each of the attesting witnesses signed the Will in the presence of testator. From the provisions of Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and definition of attestation in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, the execution of a document will have to be 23 proved by calling at least one of the attesting witnesses and attestation itself has to be proved in the form in which Section 63(c) of India Succession Act, requires. The evidence of DW.2 in the present case on hand clearly falls short of proving due execution as required under clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. There is no positive evidence indicating that the Will was executed voluntarily and freely and the testator knew and approved the contents of Will. Both the Courts have found that the profounder has failed to remove reasonable doubts surrounding the execution of the Will. Therefore, both the Courts having taken note of these significant details have come to conclusion that legatees have failed to prove due execution of Will. Therefore, the substantial question of law No.2 has to be answered in affirmative.
18. The appellants have taken a specific contention that the widow of Laxman namely Janabai has 24 bequeathed her share in the suit schedule properties and the said fact was brought to the notice of the First Appellate Court by producing the same. It is not in dispute that the parties are governed under the Bombay School of Law. Under the Bombay School of law, in the event there is a partition, a wife/widow as the case may be, would take a share on par with husband and children. Therefore, in the present case on hand, Janabai who is widow of Laxman is also entitled for equal share along with her husband and children. The appellants have set up a Will. At this stage under Section 100 of CPC, the said controversy cannot be adjudicated. However, the controversy as to whether Janabai has bequeathed her share in the suit schedule properties can be worked out in final decree proceedings. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the case of S.Sai Reddy Vs. S.Narayan Reddy and 25 others2 and in case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another Vs. Chakiri Yanadi and another3 are squarely applicable to the present case on hand.
19. It is a trite law that where parties are litigating in a partition suit and if there is death of any one of the family members and if a Will is set up, then the same has to be adjudicated in the very same proceedings rather than filing independent suit. It is not feasible to relegate a party to file an independent suit because the claim of legatees under the Will would have direct bearing on the quantification. If legatees succeed in establishing the due execution of Will, then the share that would be carved out inrespect of testator's share, would be succeeded by the legatees. If Will is not proved, then there will be invariably enlargement of shares. So all these disputed questions which are intertwined have a bearing on quantification of share and have to be worked out in final 2 (1991) 3 SCC 647 3 (2011) 9 SCC 788 26 decree proceedings, if a preliminary decree is already drawn.
20. Therefore, the substantial question of law formulated at point No.3 has to be answered in negative. Consequently the substantial question of law formulated at point No.1 has also to be answered in the negative. It is not in dispute that the parties are governed by Bombay School of law. The judgment cited by learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the case of Chamu Jinnappa Sheri and others Vs. Savitri Yeshwantrao Chagule and others4 and in the case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum Vs. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and others5 are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Even if there is a death of Janabai, her share has to be carved out and there will not be a merger of her share, unless the alleged Will executed by 4 ILR 2004 KAR 4738 5( 1978) 3 SCC 383 27 Janabai is examined and adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.
21. In that view of the matter this Court is of the view that substantial question of law framed at point No.1 has to be answered in the negative.
22. Now both the Courts have declined to grant any relief to the purchasers. Though there is no contest by the purchasers, however, that would not take away the right of the purchasers. In the present case on hand the due execution of sale deed is not in dispute. What is under dispute is that suit Item No.10 to 14 properties are also joint family ancestral properties and therefore, defendant No.1 had no authority to sell the entire extent of the land. Since appellants 16 to 17 have not stepped into the witness box, the question of legal necessity also cannot be gone into. But does not preclude appellants 6 to 17 in proceedings, this Court to at-least hold the sale 28 deed valid to the extent of share of defendant No.1- Laxman.
23. I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants 6 to 17. Therefore, the substantial question of law No.3 formulated by this Court also has to be answered in affirmative thereby holding that the sale deed is valid to the extent of share of defendant No.1 and appellants 6 to 17 are entitled to work out their equitable remedies in the final decree proceedings.
24. Since the second appeal is arising out of partition suit and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma6 has held that the benefit of amended provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act are applicable retrospectively, the quantification done by both the Courts below by adopting 6 ILR 2020 KAR 4370 29 notional partition is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra.
25. Laxman and Janabai are blessed with six children i.e., four sons and two daughters. In that view of the matter defendant No.1, widow Janabai and their children together will take 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties. In that view of the matter sale deed executed by Laxman in suit Item No.10 to 14 properties is valid to the extent of share of defendant No1.
26. With these observations, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN/EM