Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The substantial defence raised by defendants 1 and 8 was that a few days after the birth of the plaintiff's husband Krushna, he had been taken in adoption by his maternal uncle Lokanath Swain (D. W. 1) and that consequently Krushna lost all rights he had in the original family with the result that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share. It was stated that lot Nos. 2. 5. 7 and 13 of schedule A did not belong to the family lots 2, 7 and 13 having been purchased by defendant No. 1 out of his own funds and lot No. 5 having been purchased by defendant No. 8 from out of her Stridhan. It was further contended that as some of the properties which belonged to the family have not been included in the plaint schedules, the suit for partial partition is not maintainable in law. Certain other evermerits were made in the written statement which after consideration by the learned Subordinate Judge have been rejected by him and the correctness of the same is not challenged before us. It is, therefore, unnecessary to make any detailed reference to the same. Defendants 15 and 21 filed written statements supporting the case of defendants 1 and 8. Defendants 9 to 13 without admitting any of the plaint allegations stated that they would have no objection if a decree for partition was passed in the suit.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge disbelieved the plea of the contesting defendants that Krushna had been adopted by his maternal uncle Lokanath. He also held that even assuming that the adoption in fact took place an adoption by a maternal uncle of his nephew is not valid in the absence of a custom to that effect and no such custom has been established. He accepted the plea of defendants 1 and 8 regarding their claim to lot Nos. 2, 5 and 7 of the A schedule property but rejected their claim regarding lot No. 13 of that schedule. Regarding the maintainability of the suit he held that a suit for partial partition is maintainable under certain circumstances and that such circumstances exist in this case. In the result, he passed a preliminary, decree declaring the plaintiff's title to an eight annas share in the plaint A schedule property excluding therefrom the three items in respect of which he held that defendants 1 and 8 had exclusive title, a four annas share in the plaint B schedule property and a one anna share in the plaint C schedule property. So far as plaint D schedule movables are concerned he directed that the list should he substituted by the list of inventory prepared by the Commissioner and certain other directions which the learned Subordinate Judge had given and directed that an eight annas share therein be allotted to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 8 being aggrieved by the decision have filed this appeal.

15. The only other substantial contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that all the terms of family Properties having not been included in the suit a suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Although as a general rule, a suit for partition must comprise the entire family property still there are exceptions to this rule which have been recognised. A suit for partial partition has been allowed when the portion excluded is not in the possession of coparceners and may consequently be deemed not to be available for partition. A suit for partial partition has also been accepted when the portion excepted is impartible property. The rule has also been relaxed when the portion is held jointly with strangers who have no interest in the family partition. The relief claimed by the plaintiff in the Present suit is to carve out certain specific shares from out of the interest which her father-in-law Jayaram had in certain properties and to allot the same to her. If she has left out any property in which Jayaram had an interest it may be possible to construe that she has relinquished her right to a share in that property and if in future she claims any share therein, it may be possible to resist her claim on the ground that she had previously relinquished her right therein. The plaintiff is an illiterate widow who is not in possession of the documents relating to the family properties and consequently not in a position to know all the properties which her family possessed. She has therefore, sought for partition in respect of only such of the properties which to her knowledge belonged to the family. In the circumstances, therefore, we see no reason why the entire suit should be dismissed on the ground that some other Items of property in which the family has an interest have not been included in the suit. We, therefore, overrule this contention and hold that the suit as framed, was maintainable.