The third defence was that in any case defendant had become owner of suit properties by adverse possession.
It was also held that in any case the defendant had become owner of the properties by adverse possession.
Plaintiffs father Ram Prasad died in or about the year 1938 leaving plaintiff Ram Das as his son, daughter Tulsabai and Kusumabai as his widow.
After recording evidence the learned Trial Judge came to the companyclusion that all the three defences put forward by the original defendant were worth acceptance.
The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal.
By the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appellant plaintiffs Second Appeal and companyfirmed the decree of dismissal of his suit for partition as rendered by the Trial Court and as companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Hence the defence of adverse possession failed.
However the learned Appellate Judge companyfirmed the decree of dismissal of suit on the third ground, namely, that the defendant had become owner of suit properties by adverse possession.
Plaintiff was six months old when his father Ram Prasad died.
The plaintiffs suit against the original defendant Prayag who died pending the litigation was based on the ground that defendant was his uncle.
Thus out of the three grounds the plaintiff succeeded on two grounds before the Appellate Court but lost on the last ground.
Property was thus in joint possession of the parties.
That plaintiff was staying with his mother at Nagpur and defendant used to give his share in the crops every year.
The plaintiff carried the matter in Second Appeal being Second Appeal No.
According to the plaintiff his grandfather Balbhaddar died in or about the year 1911 leaving behind him his two sons Prayag, original defendant, and Ram Prasad, plaintiffs father.
That plaintiffs father and the defendant had joint interest in the suit properties which were inherited by their father from his ancestors.
Firstly it was companytended that plaintiffs mother after death of plaintiffs father Ram Prasad re married one Ram Charan and before her re marriage with Ram Charan she gave the plaintiff in adoption to Ram Charan and companysequently plaintiff had ceased to belong to the family of defendant and his deceased father Ram Prasad and companysequently he had numberright, title or interest in the suit properties.
The defence of the original defendant was there fold.
Thus out of the three defences which had originally appealed to the Trial Court two defences were held by the High Court to be unsustainable on the evidence on record.
He, therefore, filed a Civil Suit No.
That as there was numberpartition of these properties during the lifetime of his father on the one hand and defendant on the other he had acquired one half undivided share in these properties along with the defendant who had the other half share.
It was also held that there was partition between plaintiffs natural father Ram Prasad and the defendant during the formers lifetime and that the plaintiffs father had squandered away the properties which fell to his share and, therefore, also plaintiff had numbershare in the suit properties which had fallen exclusively to the share of the defendant on partition.
We shall refer to the appellant as plaintiff and respondents 1 to 7, heirs of original defendant, as defendants for the sake of companyvenience in the latter part of this judgment.
However, it was further held that the defendants defence about the adverse possession was number established on record as it was number proved that the defendant had ousted the plaintiff so far as the suit properties were companycerned.
After attaining majority he sought for partition and separate possession of his one half share which the defendant refused and hence the aforesaid suit.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court agreed with the finding of fact reached by First Appellate Court that there was numberpartition of properties between the plaintiffs natural father on the one hand and the original defendant on the other.
In short the learned Trial judge held that the plaintiff was adopted by his step father Ram Charan before his re marriage with plaintiffs mother and, therefore, plaintiff had numberright, title or interest left in the properties of his deceased natural father.
That his father Ram Prasad and the defendant Prayag were sons of one Balbhaddar Teli.
310 of 1969.
The learned Appellate Judge on re appreciation of evidence came to the companyclusion that there was numberpartition between plaintiffs father on the one hand and the defendant on the other during plaintiffs fathers lifetime and, therefore, the finding of the Trial Court on this issue was reversed.
289 A of 1960 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division , Gondia against the defendant for partition and separation of his half share in the properties described in the Schedule attached to the plant and for mesne profits.
The second defence was that in the lifetime of plaintiffs father Ram Prasad there was partition of properties and Ram Prasad was given h s share in companyownership properties and other movables and, therefore, also plaintiff had numberright, title and interest in the suit properties which on partition fell to the exclusive share of original defendant.
The learned Appellate Judge also held that the defendant had failed to provide his defence that the plaintiff was given in adoption by his mother before her re marriage with Ram Charan.
310 of 1960.
B. Majmudar, J. This appeal by special leave to appeal granted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India brings in challenge the judgment and order rendered by the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in Second Appeal No.
