Ramdas vs Sitabai & Ors

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision that the properties in question were self-acquired by the deceased Sukha, thus allowing the plaintiff, Sitabai, to claim her rightful share in the partition of the estate. The Court emphasized that the sale of Gat No. 19 by defendant No. 1, Sudam, to defendant No. 3, Ramdas, was invalid as it was executed without the consent of the co-sharer, Sitabai, under the principles of property law. The Court affirmed the trial court's order for partition and recovery of possession, ensuring that Sitabai's rights were protected under the law.