Answer to this question depends on inferences which may, reasonably be drawn from the companytents of the deed Ex.
She further stated that since 1902, Ramachandrarao was in separate possession and enjoyment of the suit lands till his death on January 20, 1955, and that at the time of his death he was number an undivided member of the joint family of himself and the plaintiffs.
She denied that the property formed part of the Desgat Watan estate of Nanandi.
60 of 1950 , for short, called the Act , and the re grant of the land made in favour of her father, under that Act.
Krishnabai, appellant, for possession of the said lands and for recovery of past and future mesne profits, with these allegations i that the suit lands were Desgat Watan lands and were part of the Desgat Watan estate of Nanandi, that by virtue of an ancient and immemorial family and territorial custom, the Desgat estate of Nanandi was impartible and descended from generation to generation to the seniormost member by the rule of primogeniture, while the junior members of the family were only given some lands for their maintenance by the holder of the Desgat for the time being iii that till his death, the appellants father companytinued to be an undivided member of the Joint family companysisting of himself and the plaintiffs and iv that on July 31, 1956, a partition by metes and bounds has taken place between the plaintiffs inter se under a partition deed.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23 10 1968 of the Mysore High Court in R.F.A. No.
26/60 in the Court of Civil Judge, Belgaum against Smt.
She further denied that her father, Ramachandrarao, came into possession of the suit land for his maintenance.
Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in the High Court of Mysore.
The Sansthan will number interfere with the lands any longer.
She further pleaded that on her fathers death she succeeded to the suit lands, which were his separate property.
The High Court companystrued the deed Ex.
Hence, you and your successors i.e., your natural born male descendants should enjoy the properties from generation to generation and live happily.
The translation effected by the trial judge, reads as under You Ramchandra Rao are my younger brother.
As against this, Shri V. S. Desai submits that since it was the admitted case of the parties that sometime before the execution of the deed Ex.
39 with the aid of its translations into English, one made by the trial judge and the other by the High Court Translator.
54 of 1969.
The deed says that Ramachandrarao desired to live separately and therefore the lands were granted to him.
There is numberevidence to the companytrary.
The translation made by the High Court Translator reads as below You are my younger brother and you have been residing with me only in jointness up till number.
20 0 0.
39 dated July 25, 1902.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by the defendant, on certificate, is directed against a judgment, dated October 23, 1968, whereby in First Appeal, the High Court of Mysore set aside the judgment and decree passed by the joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum.
The disputed words have number been underlined .
S. Desai and N. Nettar for the Respondent.
She further relied on the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Wantans Abolition Act, 1950 Bombay Act No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
They preferred to rely on the English translator of this deed made by the High Court Translator.
The learned trial judge by his judgment, dated September 29, 1962, dismissed the respondents suit with these findings a that the alleged custom of impartibility and devolution of property by the rule of primogeniture had number been proved b that there was a severance of the joint family companysisting of the two brothers, in 1902, when they had agreed to separate, that since then for about 53 years till his death in 1955, Ramachandrarao was living separately and enjoying the suit land as his separate property c that the suit lands were originally Watan lands, but they were number so at the date of the suit because the Bombay Act 60 of 1950, which came into force on May 1, 1951, had abolished Watans and thereafter the suit lands were, on the application of its holder, Ramachandrarao, regranted in his favour that the plaintiffs were aware of Ramachandraraos application for the regrant and they had tacitly assented to the regrant in his favour.
The evidence is that Ramachandrarao lived separate from 1902.
We were living jointly till today.
The respondents herein, who are the grand sons and great grandsons of Narayanarao, on July 24, 1960, instituted Suit No.
You shall also pay the Joodi to the Government hereafter.
She denied the alleged ancient, family and territorial custom of primogeniture.
Recently you have desired to take some property for maintenance Nirwah Kurat and live separate after division Vibhaktarahave .
1 Bagayat Land of No.
As you have been recently thinking of residing separately yourself by receiving some properties for your maintenance, I found it proper to give you some property for your maintenace as befits our Sansthan and have given you for your maintenance the Desgat lands of our Khata situate in the below mentioned villages in Taluka Chikodi Sub District, Belgaum District.
D. Dal, S. Bhandare, A. N. Karkhanis and Miss M. Palival for the Appellant.
The suit was resisted by the defendant appellant.
Vasundhararaje Pltf.
1000/ .
114 26 acres 30 gunthas , 115 9 acres 38 gunthas and 116 26 acres 34 gunthas , totalling about 63 acres and 22 gunthas, situate in the area of village Umarani, Taluka Chikodi, are the subject matter of the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen.
2 The land measuring 9 acres 30 guntas assessed at Rs.
The pedigree of the family given below will be helpful in understanding the facts leading to this appeal Ravalojirao died before 1900 Narayanarao Ramachandrarao died in 1924 died on 20 1 1955 Tuljeramarao Krishnabai died in 1944 Defendant appellant Appasaheb Nanasaheb Pltf.1.
Out of the lands companyered by the said deed, three lands companyprised in Survey Nos.
The learned Judges of the High Court however, did number accept this interpretation.
She further pleaded that Ramachandrarao and his brother Narayanarao had separated during their life time and the suit lands and some other lands were given to Ramachandrarao in the partition between the two brothers towards a part of his share, and it was agreed that the share of Ramchandrarao in other family properties would be separated and settled at some future companyvenient time.
Ashok Kumar Pushpendra Virendra Indrajit Ravalogirao Pltf.3 Singh Singh Singh Pltf.9 pltf.6 pltf.7 pltf.9 Narayanarao Pltf.10 By a registered document, dated July 25, 1902 Ex.
39 , executed by Narayanarao, six Desgat lands situated in villages Nanandi, Umarani and Nandikurli totalling about 120 acres, were received by Ramachandrarao, for separate living and maintenance of himself and his male lineal descendants.
Since I have deemed it proper to give you some property for your maintenance as befits our Sansthan, I have given you the following properties for your maintenance.
Pltf.2.
Particulars thereof are as under Lands situate at Village Nanadi.
Only you and your natural male descendants should enjoy the property.
189 measuring 14 acres 23 guntas assessed at Rs.
The land together with a well valued at Rs.
Then follows the description of the properties .
41 8 0 out of Survey No.
25/63.
bearing Survey No.
All these lands have been given to you along with the appurtenances for meeting the livelihood of you and your family members.
