As they were issueless they adopted Rakhmaji.
Shankar Lanke did number file any appeal.
The case of the plaintiff was that the family is gov erned by the Bombay School of Hindu Law wherein female bandhu is an heir and thereby she was entitled to succeed to the estate of Rakhmaji.
The admitted facts are that one Hariba Bhagwat of Mouza Pisore village had a son by name Appaji and a daughter Bajabai.
The claim for refund of the mortgaged money was rejected.
The material defence relevant for the disposal of this appeal is that the persons companycerned are governed by the Banaras School of Hindu Law under which a female bandhu is number an heir, Hiralals case was that the mortgage was for companysideration and that he had numberobjection to hand over the possession of the property provided the companysideration of Rs.
The respondents are in unlawful possession as trespassers.
They are Dhangars Shepard by caste.
Sonubai died on March 11, 1949.
The plaintiff was held entitled to possession and mesne profits.
Rakhmaji died in 1918 and Sonubai his childless widow succeeded to the two houses and other properties as limited owner.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
Bajabai was married to Ganpatrao Page of Madhavagoan vil lage.
29/51 filed for possession and mesne profits of two houses, Nos.
The trial companyrt framed as many as 14 issues with sub issues on each companynt.
88 as the parties have settled their dispute regarding to the other house.
90 of 1962.
The suit was resisted by the first defendant, the donee, on diverse grounds.
The gift deed was declared void and does number bind the plaintiff.
Hiralal and another filed the appeal.
Both the villages are situated in Ahmednagar District of Bombay Province.
Accordingly, the suit was decreed.
6a, which is material for the purpose of this case, that the parties are governed by the Bombay School, and number the Banaras School, of Hindu Law the plaintiff is the heir of Rakhmaji as his mothers brothers daughter, and though the companysi deration was paid under the mortgage obtained by Hiralal, it was number taken after due inquiry about existence of legal necessity and in good faith.
Sonubai, as limited owner, had numberpower to dispose of the properties by way of gift and so the gift deed and the mortgage are void and do number bind her.
It found on issue No.
She gifted House No.
Rakhmaji was the natural brother of Bhikubai, but by operation of law namely adoption, he became her fathers sisters son, i.e. a band hu.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Both the Courts have companycurrently found that the plaintiff, Rakhmaji, and Ganpatrao Page are Dhangars by caste their family God is Khandoba of Jijori their manners and customs were also of Maharashtrian, vide D.W. 8 Khsumrao and the High Court also further found that, Undoubtedly true that the customs, manners, marriages and the way they worship the God are all the same as that of Maharashtrians or of the Marathas.
88 to Shankar Lanke, a brahmin, first defendant by a registered gift deed dated October 31, 1944 under Ex DI 5.
Awadh Bihan Rohtagis Vivek Gambhir and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellants.
322 of 1973.
All of them migrated to Indore.
Shankar Lanke in turn hypothecated House No.
88 to Hiralal, fifth defendant first respondent on September 21, 1948 under Ex 5 D3.
R. Lalit and G.B. Sathe for the Respondents.
This appeal by special leave by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, Bhikubai, arises from decision in First Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. 1.
88 of 89 situated at Nandlalpura, Indore City, mentioned in the plaintschedule.
90/62 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, dated July 18, 1982 reversing the decree of the trial companyrt in O.S. No.
12,000 borrowed by Shankar Lanke was paid to him.
Appaji in turn had a son by name Rakhmaji and a daughter Bhikubai the plaintiff .
