AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Abatement, if any, is set aside.
Applications for substitution are allowed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that Item 3 of the suit schedule property was required to be divided and 1/3rd was required to be given to the plaintiff as it was suggested by the Court's Commissioner also that shops can be divided as per the share determined in the decree.
In the circumstances, we are not satisfied by the reasonings employed by the High Court, that the mortgagee was in possession and has purchased the property subsequently, on that consideration the High Court has given the entire property to them. When the plaintiff was having the share in Item 3 of the suit schedule property. She has to be given 1/3rd of her share in said Item 3 also. Let there be partition of the shop item No.3 be made and equal proportion be given to the three persons i.e. one portion to defendant Nos.7 and 8, one portion to defendant No.6 and one portion to the plaintiff. That is to say defendant Nos.6 to 8 will get 16 x 25 feet and the plaintiff will get 8 x 25 feet.
The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.