Need citation
imthiyaz
(Querist) 25 March 2009
This query is : Resolved
Repeating the queston with details
After preliminary decree before filing final decree petition, one of the decree holder A who was a 3rd plaintiff in the decree died ,
The decree holder A had 3 childrens B the son c and D the daughters, the son B had predeceased the decree holder A with 3 childrens G,H,I,,
while filing final decree petition the legal heirs of the decree holder A, were brought on record, but by mistake the legal heirs G,H,I of predeceased son B were brought on record along with their aunts C and D,
As per Mohameddan law Orphaned grandchildrens are not entitle for any share in their grandparents property, and hence we have objected in pending final decree proceedinds to strike out the legal heris G,H,I of predeceased son B.
But the judge is arguing that in Final decree proceedings only the shares as per decree will be divide addition and deletion as per personal law is not possible etc etc, But we know Final decree proceedings is continuation of original suite and hence
anything can be done in final decree proceedings,
Hence in need of citation where legal heirs not entitle for share are striked out in Final decree proceeddings..
Yes the persons will not get the share even if they are on record, since they are on record from past 10 years we want to strike out them before the closure of final decree proceedings, for which the court is arguing it cannot be done etc etc
Thanks
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 25 March 2009
it is final decree proceedings, alredy share is decided in the suit, eventhough it is continuation of original suit, in FDP share will be alloted as per the decree.
PALNITKAR V.V.
(Expert) 27 March 2009
The persons who are not entitled to share will not get it in any case whether they remain on record or not.
B.B.R.Goud.
(Expert) 29 March 2009
I DO AGREE WITH Mr pALNITKAR
imthiyaz
(Querist) 29 March 2009
Sir,
Yes the persons will not get the share even if they are on record, since they are on record from past 10 years we want to strike out them before the closure of final decree proceedings,
In the adjourned proceedings, For one of decree schedule property, which one of the defendant had sold aand the non bonafide purchaser has been added as party in the pending Final decree proceedings , The 11 decree holders defendants and plaintiffs have colluded and has come to a compromise along with signature of these persons who are not entitle for share shown as reperesenting the plaintiff number 3 in the joint memo to remove that non bonafide purchaser survey number from decree, we are the LR's who are entitle for share under 3rd plaintiff but they have not consulted us for compromise,
they are trying to mislead the court by setting aside our unheard Interlocutary application to strike out those LR's, without disposing of this important Interlocutary applicstion in which there is objection as who are the LR's of 3rd plaintiff who are entitle for share in 3rd plaintiffs share, The court is trying to proceed with compromise...
Hiralal Das
(Expert) 04 April 2009
Yes,I agree with my learned friends. Please try to follow their valuable opinions.
