TRIAL ADVOCACY, 2019

IN THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE AT DEHRADUN

Civil Case No. 34678 of 2007

IN THE MATTER OF:

GEETA DEVI
(PLAINTIFF)
V S.

MR.SANT RAM (DEFENDANT NO. 1), MR.RAM LAL (DEFENDANT NO. 2), MR.
BANT LAL(DEFENDANT NO.3), SHAM LAL (DEFENDANT NO.4) & PUNJAB &
SIND BANK (DEFENDANT NO. 5)

(DEFENDANT)


UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

 TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS———————————————————————04

LIST OF AUTHORITIES ————————————————————————05

BOOKS ———————————————————————————————05

LEGISLATIONS / CODES / STATUTES —————————————————05

LEGAL DATABASE —————————————————————————-05

LIST OF CASES ———————————————————————————06

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ----------------------------------------------------------07

STATEMENT OF FACTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------08

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENT---------------------------------------------------------------09

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ——————————————————————12

[1.] WHETHER ALIENATION MADE BY MOHAN LALIN FAVOUR OF THE PUNJAB &
SIND BANK CAN BE USED BY ANY MEMBER OR COPARCENER OF THE JOINT
HINDU FAMILY?

[2.] WHETHER PERSONAL INCOME OF BANT LAL CAN BE CONSIDERED AS JOINT

PROPERTY OF THE FAMILY?

[2.1] Salary and Remuneration

[2.2] Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930

[3.] WHETHER GEETA DEVI CAN BE DEEMED AS A COPARCENER OF THE

PROPERTY OF JOINT HINDU FAMILY?
[3.1] Section 6 of Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005

[3.2] Section 29A Hindu Succession Act

PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………….20

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. Supreme Court - SC

2. High Court- HC

3. Hindu Succession Act - HSA

4. Articles -Art.

5. Versus- v.

6. Sections- sec, §

7. Code of Civil Procedure- C.P.C

8. Read with- r/w

9. Civil Law Journal - Civil L.J.

10. Edition- Edn.

11. All India Report- A.I.R

12. Supreme Court Cases - SCC

13. Page- Pg.

14. Under section- u/s

15. And - &

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

[A.] BOOKS

1. Code of Civil Procedure , by Justice P.S. Narayana (4th Edition,2013)

2. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ,by S.A. Kader ( 2nd Edition,2014)

3. Mulla’s Hindu Law, by Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla ( 23rd Edition,2018)

4. Modern Hindu Law , by Dr. U.P.D Kesari (10th Edition,2015)

[B.] LEGISLATIONS / CODES / STATUTES

1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. 5 of 1908).

2. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act No.30 of 1956).

3. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act No.

39 of 2005).

4. Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930

[C.] LEGAL DATABASE

1. www.scconline.com

2. www.manupatra.com

3. www.lexisnexis.com

4. www.judis.nic.in

5.www.supremecourtcaselaw.
com

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 [D.]LIST OF CASES

1. Palanippa v. Commissioner of Income-tax

2. K.S. Subbiah Pillai v. Commissioner of Income Tax
3. Gokal Chand v. Hukam Chand
4. Prakash & Ors v. Phulavati & Ors
5. Hem raj vs. Nathan
6. Devulapalli Kameswara Sastri vs. Polavarapu Veeracharlu

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PLAINTIFF HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE OF DEHRADUN

BY THE PROVISION U/S 9 OF CPC.

Section 9: The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all
suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cogniSance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.

[Explanation I].- A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil
nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to
religious rites or ceremonies.

[Explanation ll].- For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are
attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
particular place

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. There was a Hindu Joint Family initially headed by Sohan Lal who acted as the Karta of the
family. The joint family consisted of Sohan Lal, his wife (Gayatri Devi), his two sons
(Mohan Lal and Sham Lal), his unmarried daughter (Kavita) and his grandchildren (children
of Mohan Lal) i.e. three grandsons ( Sant Ram, Ram Lal and Bant Lal) and an unmarried
granddaughter (Geeta Devi).

2. All the members of the joint family were living together in an ancestral house.

3. Sohan Lal was running a joint family business along with his sons at Nabha in Punjab. For
running this business he diverted a major portion of the income yielded from two hundred
acres of ancestral land and invested it into the business.

4. According to Mitakshara Law, only male members comprise the Coparcenary namely Sohan
Lal, his two sons (Mohan Lal and Sham Lal) and his three grandsons (Sant Ram, Ram Lal
and Bant Lal).

5. Sohan Lal died in 1985 and Mohan Lal become the Karta of the House and shifted the joint
family business from Nabha to Patiala and undertook its large scale expansion.

6. Mohan Lal sold ten acres from two hundred acres of ancestral land to Punjab and Sind
Bank, Patiala for rupees ten crores for the betterment of the joint family business.

7. Mohan Lal also made a gift of rupees ten lacs in favour of his unmarried daughter (Geeta
Devi)

8. No female member of the joint family was member of coparcenary, but after the the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Geeta Devi also becomes a coparcener.

9. Bant Lal, the youngest son of Mohan Lal was sent to England for doing Bar-at-law at the
expenses of the joint family. After completing his education from England he came back to
India and started practicing as an Advocate.

10. As Bant Lal kept himself all his income earned by practising as an advocate conflicts
aroused between the children of Mohan Lal .

11. Mohan Lal deeply frustrated and depressed by the way his sons acted i.e. their behaviour
while residing in the joint family died of heart attack in 2006.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 12. After death of her father [ Mohan Lal] plaintiff [ Geeta Devi] realised a reform/change in the
behaviour of her brothers towards her.

13. In apprehension that she might lose her right in the share of the joint family property, she
filed a suit in 2007 for declaration of ownership as a coparcener and co-sharer in the joint
family property.

STATEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENT I

ALIENATION MADE BY MOHAN LALIN FAVOUR OF THE PUNJAB & SIND BANK
CAN BE USED BY ANY MEMBER OR COPARCENER OF THE JOINT HINDU
FAMILY?

ARGUMENT II

PERSONAL INCOME OF BANT LAL CAN BE CONSIDERED AS JOINT PROPERTY OF

THE FAMILY?

ARGUMENT III

GEETA DEVI CAN BE DEEMED AS A COPARCENER OF THE PROPERTY OF JOINT

HINDU FAMILY?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR THE PLAINTIFF

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER ALIENATION MADE BY MOHAN LAL IN FAVOUR OF THE PUNJAB

& SIND BANK CAN BE USED BY ANY MEMBER OR COPARCENER OF THE
JOINT HINDU FAMILY?

The amendment made by the hindu succession amendment act 20051 was prospective in nature the
alienation being prior to the enactment of the amendment cannot be challenged by the plaintiff as it
is not effected by the change in law.

It is humbly submitted to this honourable court that the plaintiff is the daughter of Mohanlal has
been denied the share in the ancestral property , The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
removes discriminatory gender that was in the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and
now it gives the various rights to the daughters. As Sohanlal the then karta of the family made a will
before the amendment of 2005, which expressly states that daughters were not given right to
property under the act of 1956 but in the present case has a prosecutorial nature and has been filed
in 2007. Hence ,Geeta has the right to have a share in the ancestral property

2. WHETHER PERSONAL INCOME OF BANT LAL CAN BE CONSIDERED AS

JOINT PROPERTY OF THE FAMILY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Dehradun that personal income of Mr. Bant Lal
(Defendant No. 3) will be considered as joint family property as per Hindu Law.

[2.1] Salary and Remuneration

[2.2] Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930

3. WHETHER GEETA DEVI CAN BE DEEMED AS A COPARCENER OF THE

PROPERTY OF JOINT HINDU FAMILY?

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court that Ms Geeta Devi is entitled to claim joint
Hindu family property as per section 6 of Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 and Section 29A

1 Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005

of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 gives equal rights to daughter in coparcener
property.
[3.1] Section 6 of Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005

[3.2] Section 29A Hindu Succession Act

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR PLAINTIFF

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ARGUMENT 1

WHETHER ALIENATION MADE BY MOHAN LAL IN FAVOUR OF THE PUNJAB &

SIND BANK CAN BE USED BY ANY MEMBER OR COPARCENER OF THE JOINT
HINDU FAMILY?

The amendment made by the hindu succession amendment act 2005 was prospective in nature the
alienation being prior to the enactment of the amendment cannot be challenged by the plaintiff as it
is not effected by the change in law.

It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that the plaintiff the daughter of Mohanlal has
been denied shares in her ancestral property

1. The Conflict aroused in the joint family particularly between the children of Mohan Lal,
when BantLal kept to himself all his income earned by practicing as an Advocate. BantLal,
the youngest son of Mohan Lal was sent to England for doing Bar-at-law at the expenses of
the joint family.

2. After completing his education from England he came back to India and started practicing as
an Advocate. His established a flourishing practice over a period of time.. He did not share
any part of his earnings with the joint family, though he was staying in the joint family. This
act of BantLal was not liked by his two elder brothers and his sister.

3. Mohan Lal deeply frustrated and depressed by the way his sons acted i.e. their behaviour
while residing in the joint family died of heart attack in 2006.

4. In apprehension that she might lose her right in the share of the joint family property, she
filed a suit in 2007 for declaration of ownership as a coparcener and co-sharer in the joint
family property by invoking section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR PLAINTIFF

 Unauthorised alienation of property means the transfer of the property without any
justification which leads to invalidation of such transfer. As discussed earlier alienation can
be done through will, gifts or mortgage. As we know that karta is the manager of the hindu
families and therefore works for the welfare of the family. Alienation can be defined as “it
includes as any disposal by the father, karta, coparcener or the sole surviving coparcener of a
part or the whole of the joint family property by any act or omission, voluntary or
involuntary, intended to take part in presentor future.

5. The daughters now have equal right of inheritance to their father’s estate as sons.The
daughters have a right to receive a share in mother’s property.

6. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 removes discriminatory gender that was in
the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and now it gives the various rights to the
daughters that are as follows:In the context of coparcener, the daughter will have same rights
as the son , have to bear the same liability in the property as the son to be allotted the same
share as to the son , The married daughter does not have the right to ask for maintenance or
to shelter in her parent’s home.

7. Karta’s Power of Alienation, It is always said that the power of hindu joint family vests in
the karta. But when it comes to property matters, he is not the sole owner of the property and
therefore power of alienation can be exercised by him only in certain cases. The powers of
the karta under dayabhaga school are similar to that under mitakshara law. The alienation of
property by karta can be done only in three circumstances i.e. necessity (Apatkale), benefit
of the estate or for performance of indispensable duties.

8. Benefit of Estate has been explained that the alienation can be done for satisfying the needs
of family property or any other family estate is benefited. Primarily this was allowed when
transfers were purely defensive or protective in nature but with the instances of dilution of
‘apatkale’, alienations that an ordinary prudence man would view as appropriate in the given
set of situations are also approved.The alienations by the karta in favour of benefit of estate
are not void and therefore are authorised under the law.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR PLAINTIFF

9. The full Bench of Mumbai High Court in Hem raj vs. Nathan took an intermediate view and
held that “property cannot be alienated merely for the purpose of enhancing its value,
though, at the same time, it would not be correct to say that no transaction can be for the
benefit of estate which it is not of a defensive character”.In, Hari Singh vs. Umrao Singh
when a land yielding no profit was sold and a land yielding profit was purchased the
transaction was held to be for benefit.

10. Legal NecessityThe courts have safeguarded enough measures while defining these terms so
that they are not into a watertight compartment. Legal necessity can mean all acts done to
fulfil the essential needs of the family members in emergency situations like flood, war,
famine etc. It differs from the word purpose, to exercise this option there should be no
alternative sources left with the karta. Therefore we can analyse that the courts have given
enough power of alienation which can be justified on these grounds.

11. In Devulapalli Kameswara Sastri vs. Polavarapu Veeracharlu, it was held that necessity
should not be understood in the sense of what is absolutely indispensable but what
according to the notions of the joint Hindu family would be regarded as proper and
reasonable. Thus, Legal Necessity doesn’t mean actual compulsion; it means pressure upon
estate which may in law may be regarded as serious and sufficient.

12. Proceeding to the third ground, the property can be alienated by the father or karta where the
indispensable duties such as obsequies of the father or the like. This also includes the
marriage ceremonies of the family members which is also considered as legal necessity as it
is the most essential sanskara. Alienations are also permitted for charitable and pious
purposes. However, here the quantum of the property sold is performance of indispensable
religious ceremonies or where the transaction would be for benefit of estate, but only a small
portion of family property can be alienated for pious or charitable purposes. The point to be
noted here is that pious obligation does not include gifts made out of love and affection.
Thus, it is very clear that karta or father can alienate property only with respect to
performance of religious and indispensable duties.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR PLAINTIFF

 13. The third ground upon which the authority of the Karta to alienate joint Family property
rests, is where indispensable requires it. The term “indispensable duties”, implies the
performance of those acts which are religious, pious or charitable .Vijnaneshwara gave one
instance of Dharmamarthe, viz., obsequies of the father and added “or the like”. The phrase
“and the like” refers to annual sraddhas, the ceremony of upanayanam, the marriage of
coparcener and of girls born in family and all other religious ceremonies. Apart from such
indispensable ceremonies, gift within reasonable limit can be made for pious purposes, for
ex; a small portion of property can be alienated for a family idol or to an idol in a public
temple.

Therefore it is respectfully submitted that in the first half of the issue where Bantlal didn’t make
contribution to the expenses of the joint family even after yielding benefit from it and also residing
with the joint family. If members of the family makes contribution to the expenses of the joint
family each and every member should contribute. In the second half of the issue where Geetadevi
challenged the alienation of the property which was sold to the Punjab and Sindh bank , the plaintiff
claims that the grounds to permit the alienation of the property has not been fulfilled therefore the
contract between Mohanlal and Punjab and Sindh bank is void in nature and Geetadevi can ask for
share in the alienated property .

ARGUMENT II

[2.] WHETHER PERSONAL INCOME OF BANT LAL CAN BE CONSIDERED AS JOINT

PROPERTY OF THE FAMILY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Dehradun that personal income of Mr. Bant Lal
(Defendant No. 3) will be considered as joint family property as per Hindu Law.

This statement will further be supported by following

[2.1] Salary and Remuneration

[2.2] Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR PLAINTIFF

[2.1] Salary and Remuneration

Where a member of joint family makes acquisition with the aid of any part of joint family property,
it cannot be his separate earning nor can it be said to be his separate property simply on account of
the fact that such acquisition was made by him by applying his own wisdom or skill.

In Palanippa v. Commissioner of Income-tax2. The Supreme Court observed that where no part of
the family funds had been spent to enable the Karta to earn remuneration of managing director and
the family funds had been invested to obtain dividends and other advantages of being shareholders,
the salary, commission and sitting fees of Karta as managing director shall remain his personal
property.

In K.S. Subbiah Pillai v. Commissioner of Income Tax3, the remuneration and commission was
received by the Karta of the family. The tribunal had held that the remuneration and commission
received by the Karta of the joint Hindu family where earned by him on account of his personal
qualifications and exertions and not on account of the investment of the family funds in the
company, therefore it could not be treated as the income of H.U.F. In this case the Supreme Court
also observed that the decision given by tribunal is correct.

In context of issue Mr. Bant Lal - acquisition made by Bant Lal of his income from the practice of
profession of Lawyer is result of the aid given by his joint family. This is, because he was sent to
England for doing Bar-at-law at the expenses of the joint family and after completing his education
from England he came back to India and started practicing as an Advocate, so his earning is only
possible because of his education, expenses of which was bear by the joint family. So, according to
Mitakshara law personal income of Mr.Bant lal will be deemed as joint family property , in which
Geeta Devi ( plaintiff) have equal right as coparcener4

[2.2] Gains of Learning

As per Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, no gains of learning shall be held not to be the exclusive
and separate property of the acquirer merely by reasons of learning having been imparted to him by
any member of his family or with the aid of the joint funds of the family or with the aid of the funds
of any member.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR PLAINTIFF

2 AIR 1968 S.C. 678

3 AIR 1999 S.C 1220

4 Section 6 of Hindu Succession ( Amendment) Act, 2005

Section 3 of Hindu Gains of Learning Act,

“Notwithstanding any custom, rule or interpretation of the Hindu law, no gains of learning shall be
held not to be exclusive and separate property of the member of the joint family who acquires them
merely by reason of

(a) his learning5 having been in whole or in part, imparted to him by any member living or
deceased, of his family or with the aid of joint funds of his family or with the aid of joint fund of
any member thereof, or

(b) himself or his family having while he was acquiring such learning been maintained or
supported, wholly or in part, by the joint funds of his family or by the funds of any member thereof.

Learning means education whether elementary, technical, specific, special or general and training
of every kind which is usually intended to enable a person to pursue any trade, industry, profession
or a vocation in life.

Gains of learning6 means all acquisitions of property made substantially by means of learning,
whether before or after the commencement of the Act and whether ordinary or extra-ordinary result
of such learning.

It was decided in the case of Gokal Chand v. Hukam Chand7 , that income earned by a member of
joint family by practice of arty occupation requiring special training was joint family property and
partible if such training was imported at the cost of family expenses.

Therefore, according to aforesaid points personal income of Mr. Bant Lal will be counted as joint
family property because his income come under the title of gains of learning.

ARGUMENT III

WHETHER GEETA DEVI CAN BE DEEMED AS A COPARCENER OF THE PROPERTY OF

JOINT HINDU FAMILY?

It is most humbly submitted to the Hon’ble court that Ms Geeta Devi is entitled to claim joint Hindi
family property as per section 6 of Hindu Succession Amendment Act 20058 .

5 Section 2(c)of Hindu Gains of Learning Act,1960

6 Section 5 (d) of Hindu Gains of Learning Act,1960

7 2 L. 23 P.C.
8 Cited by bare act
This issue will be explained in two parts :
(3.1) She is eligible to claim for joint possession of property as according to section 6 of hindu
succession amendment act 2005 :
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (39 of 2005), in a Joint Hindu family governed by the
Mitakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall,―
(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right the same manner as the son;
(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;
(1) On and from the commencement of the
(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son,
and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a
daughter
of a coparcener:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall affect or invalidate any disposition or
alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place
before the 20th day of December, 2004.

Prakash & Ors v. Phulavati & Ors9, filed on October 16, 2015. SC believes in its judgment that the
daughter's property rights are forward-looking in the application, that is, only if both the father and
daughter are alive. On the date of the Amendment Act
The main issue considered by the Standards Committee is whether the “Amendment Act” applies to
retrospective investigations. This issue has been influenced by the different positions and often
conflicting positions taken by the High Courts in the past.
In this case, Phulavati has filed a lawsuit seeking to split and own 1/7 (one-seventh) of her father's
property (by inheriting his adoptive mother). Phulavati's father died on February 18, 1988. When
the lawsuit was pending, Phulavati amended the share of her father's property in accordance with
the amendment bill. The High Court of Karnataka ruled that Phulavati believed that the amendment
(in this case the amendment bill) applied to pending proceedings, even if such amendments were
forward-looking (HC orders) in their operations. The order was questioned before the SC.
In its judgment, the Standards Committee considered that a simple interpretation of the Regulations
(Amendment Act) itself indicated that the daughter had the right to acquire joint property before and
after the amendment bill came into force. The Standards Committee believes that “the amendments
to the substantive provisions are always promising unless the explicit or necessary intent is
retroactive”. In this case, there is no clear or expected rule that makes the “Amendment Act”
retroactive in its application, and according to the “Amendment Act”, only “living women” can
obtain the “common property” right on September 9. . 2005.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR PLAINTIFF

9Civil Appeal No.7217 of 2013

The SC command puts the HC command on hold. The incident was returned to the High Court of
Karnataka in order to make a new decision in accordance with the future application of the
amendment law established by the SC

(3.2)29A- Equal rights to daughter in coparcenary property10. — Notwithstanding anything

contained in section 6 of this Act—

(i) in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara Law, the daughter of a coparcener shall by birth,
become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the
coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to claim by
survivorship; and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son;

(ii) at a partition in such a joint Hindu family the coparcenary property shall be so divided as to allot
to a daughter the same share as is allot-able to a son:

Provided that the share which a pre-deceased son or a pre-deceased daughter would have got at the
partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition shall be allotted to the surviving child
of such pre-deceased son or of such pre-deceased daughter: Provided further that the share allotable
to the pre-deceased child of a pre-deceased son or of a pre-deceased daughter, if such child had
been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such pre-deceased child of the
pre-deceased son or of the pre-deceased daughter as the case may be;

(iii) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause (i)
shall be held by her with the incidents of coparcenary ownership and shall be regarded,
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as
property capable of being disposed of by her by will or other testamentary disposition;

(iv) Nothing in clause (ii) shall apply to a daughter married prior to or to a partition which had been
effected before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act,
1986.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR THE PLAINTIFF

10 cited by bare act

 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, argument advanced and authorities cited, the
counsels on behalf of the plaintiff humbly pray before this Hon’ble District Judge, Dehradun that
may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Alienation must be declared invalid

2. Geeta Devi shall be deemed as the coparcener

And pass any such order that this hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscious.

Place: Dehradun

Date: 16th April, 2007

S/d ____________

(COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF )

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF FOR THE PLAINTIFF