26 and Rs.
138 and a half share in Nos.
His grandson, Devji, also built a house.
63 and 148 of 1947, from Original Decree, arising out of the Decree dated the 31st July, 1946, of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijapur, at Bijapur in Special Civil Suit No.
The plaintiff claims that by reason of his adoption he has become a preferential heir entitled to divest Devji of those properties, and sues to recover them from his sons.
On 16th December, 1901, Lakshmibai adopted Devji, who died on 6th May, 1935, leaving three sons, defendants Nos.
Siddopint purchased a house under Exhibit D 36 and lands under Exhibits D 61 and D 64, and companystructed two substantial houses.
30 per annum.
It is the plaintiffs case that these properties were either ancestral, or were acquired with the aid of joint family funds.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 12th August, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeals Nos.
They denied that those properties had been blended with the joint family properties.
They referred to the fact that both the brothers were obliged to go to the State of Hyderabad for earning their livelihood, and that Krishnarao had been obliged to borrow under Exhibits D 89 and D 90 even petty amounts like Rs.
There is numbersatisfactory evidence about the income which these lands were yielding at the material period.
In the alternative, he claims a half share in them on the ground that they had been blended with the admitted Joint family properties.
On a companysideration of the entire evidence, the trial Court put the annual income at Rs.
The other branch was represented by Swamirao, who was entitled for his half share of the Watan lands, to the whole of S. No.
The present appeal is preferred against this decision.
As regards the properties set out in Schedule C, while the trial Court decided that the appellant was entitled to them exclusively under the decision of the Privy Council in Anant Bhikappa Patil Minor v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil 1 , the High Court held following a Full Bench decision of that Court in Jivaji Annaji v. Hanmant Ramchandra 2 , that they belonged exclusively to Devji, and that the plaintiff companyld lay numberclaim to them.
what the findings of the Courts below are regarding the extent of the ancestral properties, the income they were yielding, the amounts that were invested by Siddopant in the purchases and house companystructions, and the other resources that were available to him.
Narayan Raghavendra Gundo D 1 D 2 D 3 Siddopant and Krishnarao were members of a joint undivided family.
Rukminibai, P.W. 6, and Akkubai, D.W. 1, gave companyflicting evidence on the point.
Both the Courts below have held that the adoption of the plaintiff is true and valid, and that question is numberlonger in dispute before us.
They further companytended that the only ancestral properties belonging to the family were the Watan lands in the villages of Ukamnal and Katakanhalli, that the purchases made by Siddopant were his self acquisitions, that the suit houses were also built with his separate funds, and that the plaintiff was number entitled to a share therein.
All these properties are set out in Schedules A and B to the plaint, A Schedule companysisting of houses and house sites and B Schedule of lands.
10 on onerous terms, and they accordingly companycluded that the income from the lands companyld number have beep sufficient even for maintenance.
On the first question, the argument of the appellant is that as the family admittedly possessed income producing nucleus in the ancestral Watan lands of the extent of 56 acres, it must be presumed that the acquisitions standing in the name of Siddopant were made with the aid of joint family funds, that the burden lay on the defendants who claimed that they were self acquisitions to establish that they were made without the aid of joint family funds, that the evidence adduced by them fell far short of it, and that the presumption in favour of the plaintiff stood unrebutted.
For deciding whether this companytention is well founded, it is necessary to see 1 70 I.A. 232.
He accordingly claims a half share in them as representing Krishnarao.
1 to 3, and a widow, Akkubai, the fourth defendant.
Siddopant died in 1899 leaving him surviving his son, Gundo, who died in 1901 leaving behind a widow, Lakahmibai, who is the fifth defendant.
137 and to a half share in S.Nos.
Both the Courts a reed in negativing the companytention of the plaintiff that there had been a blending of these properties with the joint family properties.
The trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a half share in S. Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
28 of 1945.
They have also held that the purchases made by Siddopant and the houses built by him were his self acquisitions, as was also the house built by Devji.
On appeal, the learned Judges of the High Court were also of the opinion that the income from the lands companyld number have been companysiderable.
B. Jathar and Ratnaparkhi Anant Govind for the respondents.
I.L.R. 195o Bom.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENICATARAMA AYYAR J. VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the appellant in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Bijapur.
164 of 1952.
The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table Ramchandra Siddopant Krishnarao alias Sadashiv d. 1897 d.1899 m. Rukmini D 6 Gundo m. Laxmibai D 5 I Shrinivas Devji m. Akkubai D 4 adopted son adopted plaintiff d. 6 9 1935.
plaintiff companyld number by reason of his adoption divest Devji of the properties which had devolved on him as heir.
The first companytention that has been urged on behalf of the appellant is that the finding of the Courts below that the properties purchased by Siddopant and the houses companystructed by him and Devji were self acquisitions, is erroneous, firstly because the burden was wrongly cast on the plaintiff of proving that they were made with the aid of joint family funds, and secondly because certain documents which had been tendered in evidence by the plaintiff had been wrongly rejected as inadmissible.
On the question of the nucleus, the only properties which were proved to belong to the joint family were the Watan lands of the extent of about 56 acres, bearing an annual assessment of Rs.
133 and 136 in the village of Ukamnal and a half share in S. Nos.
639 and 640 in Schedule A on the ground that they belonged to the family as ancestral properties but the High Court held that that had number been established.
The lessee who cultivated the lands of Swamirao, who owned, a share in the Watan lands equal to that of Siddopant and Krishnarao, deposed that the net income was Rs.
2025 and 2140 for Rs.
They observed that the assessment of less than a rupee per acre was an indication that the lands were of poor quality.
Siddopant and Krishnarao represented one branch of a Kulkarni family and were entitled for their share of the Watan lands, to the whole of S. No.
B. Dadachanjiand Naunit Lal for the appellant.
On 26th April, 1944, Rukminibai adopted the plaintiff, and on 29th June, 1944, he instituted the present suit for partition claiming a half share in the family properties.
March 23.
They characterised the oral evidence of P.W. 6 and D.W. I on the point as worthless.
With reference to the properties in Schedule C, they pleaded that the.
On 23rd July, 1890, he purchased under Exhibit D 64 lands bearing S. Nos.
Swainirao died about 1903 issueless, and on the death of his widow shortly thereafter, his properties devolved on Devji as his nearest agnate, and they are set out in Schedule C to the plaint.
Krishnarao died in 1897 leaving behind a widow, Rukminibai, who is the sixth defendant in the suit.
But neither of them companyld have had much of first hand knowledge, as both of them came into the family by marriage long after the nineties, and were then very young.
The defendants denied the truth and validity of the plaintiffs adoption.
