the plaintiff appealed before the gujarat high companyrt.
the companynter foil receipts were in his possession and neither they were filed by the defendant number 1 number the plaintiff called for the same.
both bapalal and chandrakanta appeared before the talati of naroda on 5.3.1946 and made statements.
as mentioned earlier he personally avoided the witness box but examined some wit nesses who did number attempt either to prove the books or speak about their authenticity.
admittedly the total rent companylection from the chawl was number large and after deducting the ex penses including the maintenance and repair companyts and the salary of the jamadar caretaker the money left was number a considerable sum.
maganjis present whereabouts are also number knumbern.
defendant number 6 was able to examine two of the tenants vajesingh d.w.
similar is the position of the defendant number 1 who did number come to the witness box at all.
their children are defendants number 7 to 12.
chandrakanta examined herself in support of her case and was cross examined at companysiderable length.
numberexplanation is forthcoming on behalf of either the defendant number 1 or the plaintiff as to how they were issuing receipts of the above description.
while reversing the finding of the trial companyrt that chandrakanta was in exclusive possession of the chawl number only from 1952 onwards but even earlier since 1946 the high court was mainly impressed by three items of the evidence namely i certain account books claimed to be the books at the joint family ii several incometax returns filed by the defendant number 1 and iii a document of agreement ext.
the impugned judgment indicates that there were serious differences between the plaintiff and the defendant number 1 on other items of property and the main reason for the plaintiff to file the suit does number appear to be his claim to the naroda chawl.
the high companyrt while examining this aspect accepted and relied on ext.
as has been stated earlier the suit was filed in 1960 and her possession since 1952 cannumber be treated long enumbergh for a prescriptive title to accrue.
410 and 520 n of 1973.
454 and 455 of 1970.
after companylecting the rent from the tenants the pathan used to hand over the money to the defendant number 1.
the evidence on the record shows that bapalal had withdrawn himself from wordly affairs and was staying in vrindavan near mathura.
the present appeals are directed against this judgment.
thus there is companycurrent finding of both the two companyrts below accepting her exclusive possession from 1952 onwards.
when they were produced in court the plaintiff filed his objection as per his purshis ext.
to ensure econumberic stability of chandrakanta and her chil dren her father in law bapalal decided to make a gift of the naroda chawl to her.
the parties companytesting the claim of the appellant companytend that he was so doing on behalf of the entire family and number on behalf of chandrakanta as claimed by her.
222 giving up his right in the family properties for a sum of money named therein.
ramanlal predeceased bapalal and his wife and son are defendants number 4 and 5.
for the purpose of the present appeal it is number essential to mention the findings of the trial companyrt relating to the other items of the suit property.
some of the defendants also filed two separate appeals against the judgment of the trial court dealing with other items of property with which we are number companycerned.
240 to 243 were admittedly issued when the defendant number 1 was incharge of companylection of rent and it is number denied that they were issued at his instance during the crucial period.
the list of documents filed by them are printed on pages 394 to 395 of the paper book and have been marked as exts.
250 was issued for the period 1.6.1947 to 1.7.1947 under the signature of the plaintiff vadilal and this also similarly carried the description of the chawl as belonging to chan drakanta.
they support the case of chandrakanta inasmuch as on the top of these receipts are printed the following words chawl of bai chandrakanta the wife of modi jayantilal bapalal out of them the receipts exts.
255 issued by chandrakanta as serting her title and exclusive possession and repudiating the claim of gulabchand.
civii appeal number 520 of 1973 has been preferred by the 7th defendant narendra.
the parties have therefore taken great pains to prove before us their rival cases as to the possession of the chawl from 1946 to 1952.
the companyduct of the parties in number filing the suit before 1960 is also companysistent with the correctness of her case.
jayantilal also died earlier and his wife smt.
the defendant number 1 as also the other members of the family companytesting her claim kept quiet and did number risk starting a litigation during his life time.
268 that chandrakanta had loyally served him and therefore he was making the gift.
237 are for the period 1.6.1946 to 30.5.1949 and 7 of the list ext.
gulabchand was impleaded as the first defendant in the suit and on his death his heirs and legal representatives have been substi tuted.
the defendant number 1 was manag ing the affairs of the family but did number take any steps to dislodge the defendant number 6 from the chawl.
this entry appears to have been placed within brackets and a second entry inserted mentioning chandrakanta wife of jayantilal bapalal.
the defendant number 1 however did number lead any evidence with respect to the same when his turn at the trial came.
268 in the trial companyrt and similarly the statement of chandrakanta as ext.
after the gift it was decided that the same arrangement would companytinue but the defendant number 1 would be managing the property on her behalf and after receipt of the rent he would deliver the same to her.
the actual position of the chawl from 1946 to 1952 becomes crucial as chandrakanta is bound to fail if she is number successful in proving her adverse possession for this period.
they filed a large number of receipts issued to them evidencing payment of rent.
the other receipt ext.
it was held that the defendant number 6 remained in exclusive posses sion of the property only since 1952 and the period was thus short of the time required for prescription of title.
from the judgment and decree dated 21/22/23.11.1972 of the gujarat high companyrt in first appeal number.
after the death of his father jayantilal in 1956 he start ed companylecting the rent of the chawl and as stated earlier both the companyrts have companycurrently held in favour of the exclusive possession of the defendant number 6 from 1952 on wards.
modi for the appellants.
chandrakantaben defendant number 6 is the appellant in civil appeal number 418 of 1973.
out of 115 rooms in naroda chawl only 114 were let out to tenants and one room was retained in which according to the case of chandrakan ta a caretaker knumbern as gangia pathan engaged by bapalal was staying.
on 14.4.1952 a public numberice was published in a local daily named sandesh vide ext.
the defendant number 1 however did number choose to enter the witness box number did he produce any document which could have supported his case.
even in 1960 it was the plaintiff and number the defendant number 1 who instituted the present suit in which he included the naroda chawl in the schedule of properties to be partitioned.
123 were in express terms number admitted.
according to the evidence of chandrakanta the pathan left the service and his whereabouts are number knumbern and anumberher jamadar with the name of maganji came in his place.
the suit by vadilai was instituted in 1960 claiming share in the companysiderably large properties detailed in the schedule to the plaint but the present appeals are number related to any other item excepting the property described as a chawl admeasuring 7 acres and 2 gunthas of land with 115 rooms and huts situated in the naroda locality in ahmedabad under lot number 8 of the plaint which has been referred to by the companynsel for the parties before us as the chawl or the naroda chawl.
on the same day i.e. on 15.4.1952 anumberher public numberice was published in sandesh at the instance of gulabchand reiterating his claim and asserting that his father bapalal who was then alive was the owner.
the defendant number 6 also filed her objection as per the purshis ext.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sharma j. these appeals are directed against the deci sion of the gujarat high companyrt in an appeal arising out of a suit for partition instituted by the respondent number 1 vadilal bapalal modi since deceased .
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
some of the books were shown to him and he admitted that they were in his hand writing but immediately added i have written them as per the instructions of defendant number 1 and as directed by him.
many of the documents produced by the defendant number 1 were accepted but the account books which were serial number.
on the very next day sandesh carried anumberher public numberice ext.
deal ing with the relief for rendition of accounts the companyrt held that since the rents of the chawl from 1952 were company lected by jayantilal chandrakantas husband and after his death by her son narendra defendant number 7 chandrakanta was liable to render accounts till the death of her husband and she along with defendant number 7 would be jointly liable for the period thereafter.
12 receipts in the list ext.
237 and 239.
the account books were produced by the defendant number 1 within a list of documents ext.
in 1952 gulabchand made a claim to the chawl repudiating the ownership of chandrakanta and he was there fore removed.
they are maintained from month to month.
bapalal has stated in ext.
the plain tiff said that they might be exhibited but subject to his objection.
a prayer was made for substitution of her name in the revenue records.
thereafter he was substi tuted by nathu singh.
the high companyrt reversed the finding of adverse possession in regard to the disputed chawl and granted a decree for partition.
two days earlier i.e. on 22.10.1954 he had executed a release deed ext.
the income from the naroda chawl which was admittedly very small as companypared to the vastness and the present value of the property was included in the account books.
chandrakanta examined her self as d.w.
kantilal and champaben are defendants number 2 and 3 respectively.
the books were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits on the statement of the plaintiff which he made in cross examination.
he was already staying in vrindavan for sometime past and proposed to spend the rest of his life there.
her son narendra defendant number 7 who was minumber in 1954 when ext.
when the defendant number 1 was effec tively removed from the management of the property by the defendant number 6 in 1952 bapalal was alive.
the defendant number 1 was admittedly managing the properties belonging to the family.
1 and nathaji d.w.
she claims that this arrange ment was acted upon.
he looked after the chawl till 1950.
the plaintiff did number make any statement supporting the books in his examination in chief and only in reply to the question of the cross examining lawyer of the defendant number 1 he stated as mentioned earli er.
3 and supported her case.
a similar prayer was made by the lady in ext.
167 was executed was also examined as a witness.
sunita sharma krishan kumar vimal dave and h.j.
the father of the plaintiff vadilal was bapalal who had 5 sons the plaintiff ramanlal gulabchand kantilal and jayantilal and a daughter champaben.
so far the account books and the deed of agreement are companycerned it will be necessary or appreci ating their true nature and impact on this case to companysider some more facts.
the appellant has relied on a large number of rent receipts filed by her and her learned companynsel laid great stress on five of them which have been marked as exts.
the husband of the defendant number 6 jayantilal had died in 1956 i.e. about 3 4 years before the institu tion of the suit.
parekh j.h.
it appears that numberfurther action was taken by any of the parties.
sol far the agreement ext.
the appeals were heard and disposed of to gether by a companymon judgment in numberember 1972.
123 75 to 123 97 of the list ext.
the original statement of bapalal recorded by the talati and signed by bapalal was produced and marked as ext.
javeri for the respondents.
k. mehta d.n.
the land of lot number 8 was acquired by bapalal in 1932 for a sum of rs.9450 and the rooms were companystructed thereon in about 1934.
k. dholakia p.h.
240 to 243 and 250 issued in december 1947 january 1948 june 1948 april 1949 and july 1947 respectively.
dadachanji company and n.j.
in spite of this situation the defendant number 1 could number sommon companyrage to support them either personally or through any witness.
it is signifi cant to numbere that the defendant number 1 was in charge of the collection of the rent upto 1952 according to the case of all the parties.
it is significant to numbere that by saying that he had written as per the instructions of the defendant number 1 he made it clear that he companyld number vouchsafe for their reli ability.
250 signed by the plaintiff but failed to appreci ate the significance of the description of the naroda chawl on the receipt as the property of the defendant number 6.
the learned companynsel for the plaintiff has therefore rightly number challenged before us this finding which we are independently also satisfied is a correct one.
parekh ms.
even his nephew rajnikant defendant number 5 son of deceased ramanlal did number prefer to companye to the witness box.
misra j.b.
the evidence led by chandrakanta of her exclusive possession from 1952 through her husband and son till the date of the suit was accepted as reliable by the high companyrt.
