Hearing a petition in search of the written announcement utilizing Vasundhara Raje Hemant Singh, Yashodhara Raje Bhansali, Padma Raje at the various immoveable and transportable houses of past due to Maharaja Jivaji Rao Scindia, ruler of the erstwhile princely nation of Gwalior be set apart, Justice R. D Dhanuka of Bombay High Court lately held that no case had been made out for hanging out of written statement as placed up via late Madhav Rao Scindia and others against the name fit made via late Vijaya Raje Scindia and others. Thus, a note of Motion (L) No.2482 of 2018 is disregarded. In effect, therefore, the courtroom refused to grant any alleviation to former Minister and Congress leader Jyotiraditya Scindia in combat for ancestral residences that go back many years.
The alleged inconsistencies inside the affidavit dated 15 October 1985 and the written statements filed by using defendants three to five – Vasundhara Raje Hemant Singh, Yashodhara Raje Bhansali, and Padma Raje can be considered at the time of trial in the suit above.
The effect of the alleged inconsistency and contradiction within the pleadings filed by using the parties in distinct fits can be considered with the aid of this courtroom on the trial stage.
Although made clear, the court had not expressed any views on the alleged inconsistencies or contradictions created by way of any of the parties in any of the suits or the interlocutory court cases. All such contentions are kept open.
The court docket was directed to the location of the matter on board for directions before the learned Judge had assigned the suit for suitable instructions that would continue with the fit. There shall be no order as to costs. The admitted facts are that the original plaintiff. Vijayaraje Jivajirao Scindia (the former Rajmata of Gwalior) had filed the in shape towards her son, Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia. Six others, among other things, praying for a declaration that the transportable properties defined inside the sorrow and all other immovable homes that may on right inquiries be ascertained as having belonged to Sir H.H.Jivajirao (Hindu Undivided Family) were the HUF houses wherein the plaintiff and the defendant number one have been entitled to an identical percentage. A decree of the partition of these properties similarly between the plaintiff and the defendant number one and for different reliefs changed into prayed for.
During the pendency of the suit, the unique plaintiff and the original defendant No. 1 expired. Insofar as defendant numbers three, 4, and five are involved, they’re married daughters of the individual plaintiff and late Shri Jivajirao Scindia and were the sisters of the individual defendant Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia. Padma Raje was one of the authentic plaintiff’s daughters and the past due Shri Jivajirao and the sister of the original defendant no.1, who expired.
It is contended that the late Jivajirao Scindia was the Karta and manager of the joint and undivided Hindu circle of relatives known as the Sir H.H.Jivajirao HUF, including himself, the plaintiff, authentic defendant numbers 1 to three and four and five, and the said Smt. Padma Raje. It is said that between the 12 months of 1961 and 1971, every so often, the defendant numbers three to five and the stated Padma Raje. After her loss of life, defendant Nos. 5 and seven had obtained their shares inside the stated deceased’s property according to the law. It is also alleged that the rest of the said HUF houses, portable and immovable, also belonged to the plaintiff and defendant number one in identical percentage as participants of the joint own family of which defendant number 1 became Karta and supervisor at the demise of Jivajirao Scindia.
It is contended that defendant numbers 2 to 6 are joined as proper parties to the in shape; however, they have no hobby within the said moveable houses. It isn’t always in dispute that within the stated Suit No. 1861 of 1984, the original plaintiff had filed a Notice of Motion No.1742 of 1984 praying for diverse meantime reliefs consisting of the prayer of appointment of Court Receiver in appreciation of all transportable properties belonging to Sir H.H.Jiwajirao (HUF). The authentic plaintiff made some of the averments within the affidavit in guiding the attention of motion made in the plaint.
It is the case of the applicant that on 15 October 1985, the defendant no. Four, on behalf of herself and defendants numbers three and 5 to 7, filed an affidavit mentioning that she had examined the copy of the sorrow and observed the motion and the reproduction of the testimony to assist the awareness of movement in addition to the reproduction of the testimony in rejoinder and reply to it. She and on behalf of defendants numbers three and five to 7 sought leave to repeat and reiterate all the averments, submissions, and statements made and contentions raised using the plaintiff as if they were integrated into the stated affidavit in verbatim and fashioned a part of the indicated affidavit. It turned into prayer that the attention of movement is made absolute with costs. The said affidavit became filed by way of the defendant Nos. 3 to 7.
The defendant strongly positioned reliance on the averments made via Smt. Vijayaraje Jivajirao Scindia, widow of overdue Shri Jivajirao Scindia, in Special Civil Suit No. 705 of 1985 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Pune against past due to Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia and the daughters of the past due to Smt.Vijayaraje Jivajirao Scindia (widow of past due to H.H. Jivajirao Scindia) among other things praying for an announcement that the plaintiff therein changed into having a 50 percent share in the properties.
