Hi, I would like to know the impact of VINEETA SHARMA Vs RAKESH SHARMA in a particular scenario.
Brief facts are:
- Plaintiff filed a case for separate partition from her fathers joint family properties.
"The case of the plaintiff in the lower court was that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of her father. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 9 constitutes a Joint Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) governed by the Hindu Mitakshara School of Law and the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Her father Late Sri. Muraharachari constructed the residential house in the schedule properties out of joint family income and manage the affair of joint family and looking after the schedule properties a kartha thereof. Therefore, plaintiff, as a coparcener of the Joint family, she is entitled to 1/8th share in the schedule properties"
- Trial court reject the case since father was not alive based upon the I.A filed under order 7 rule 11 based upon the Prakash v. Phulavati case. Therefor case was rejected before the evidence stage.
- Plaintiff filed an appeal and taken a contrary stand in the HC stating that
“The present suit filed by the plaintiff for the partition in schedule property on the ground that ‘the schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of her father. After the death of her father intestate, the appellant and the respondent 1 to 9 have succeeded to the estate left by late Muraharachari as the Class -I legal hires thereof. But the learned Trial Court without considering the said aspects has passed impugned order.”
- What will happen in such cases in the HC. Will this appeal be dismissed by the HC or it will be sent back to the lower court. Being a defendant how do I go in this case in the HC.
Thanks and Regards,
Sandeep
