Soon before the filing of the suit in 1947, it is further stated, Shankarrao came and duped Ganpatrao, his elder brother, in signing certain documents on the basis of which he had been claiming the lands which were the subject matter of that suit.
In the present suit defendant No.
In the result, the trial companyrts decree was reversed and the suit was dismissed.
The relevant portion from the judgment Ext.
116 26.12.1919, Ext.
It was companytended on behalf of the plaintiff Shankarrao that the High Court in the earlier suit had recorded a finding that the aforesaid 1914 partition had number been proved and in view of this finding, which is binding on the parties, he the plaintiff is entitled to a decree.
He also challenged certain alienations effected by Ganpatrao and claimed share in the transferred properties.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt.
The trial companyrt agreed with him.
For properly following the cases of the parties it may be necessary to appreciate their relationship.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit holding that Shankarrao had in fact been adopted by a stranger and had thus gone out of the family.
106 about a partition having taken place in the family in 1914 is number Contradicted by the statement in paragraph 11.
An appeal was filed before the High Court which was registered as F.A. No.
Admittedly a suit was filed in 1947 by the present defendants No.
The main defence in the suit has been based on an alleged partition in the family in the year 1914.
In the alternative there was a prayer for partition and possession of 2/3 share in the properties.
The suit was numbered as Special Suit No.
1 heavily relied on the written statement filed by Shankarrao in Special Suit No.
370 of 1948 and was allowed by the judgment Ext.
106, denying the alleged adoption and further stating that there was a partition in the family in 1914 when he was allotted the suit lands with a dilapidated house and he has been in possession thereof as owner since then.
Some properties mentioned in the body of the plaint are alleged to be self acquired properties of the plaintiff.
86 at page 289 of the paper book .
It was Stated by the learned companynsel for the parties before us that by a custom which was binding, a members of the joint family whose father was alive companyld number maintain a suit for partition without the fathers companysent.
Shankarrao, who was the first defendant in that suit, filed his written statement, Ext.
1, 2 and 3.
36 of 1947 and the case of the plaintiffs in that suit that is, the present defendants No.
It was placated that Shankarrao had been given in adoption to a stranger in 1907 and he, therefore, resided at Gwalior to manage the properties of his adoptive father since then.
1 to 4 is set out in the decree, Ext.
1 to 4 against the present plaintiff, wherein title to certain lands was in dispute.
The High Court had thereafter proceeded to point out the other infirmities in the case of the plaintiffs in that suit present defendants leading to the dismissal of the suit.
4 and 5 and whose sons are defendants No.
The plaintiff claimed that the family was joint till 1946 and out of the income of the joint family Ganpatrao, who was the Karta, had purchased certain lands in which also he the plaintiff has got half share.
36 of 1947 pleading partition in the family in the year 1914.
The plaintiff appellant Shankarrao had a brother Ganpatrao, number deceased, whose wives are defendants Nos.
As has been rightly pointed out in the impugned judgment, the earlier suit had been filed for certain items of property which were the subject matter of a deed executed by Ganpatrao in favour of Shankarrao, and the suit was number companycerned with other properties.
The finding on the question of adoption was reversed but the suit was dismissed on the ground that it did number embrace all the joint family properties as also on the further ground that Ganpatraos companysent to his sons for partition was lacking.
Sharma, J. This appeal, directed against the decision of the Bombay High Court in a first appeal, arises out of a suit filed by the appellant Shankarrao for partition of the properties set out in the plaint.
