Sarji who died on November 6, 1956, will number be governed by the provisions of that Act, but by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law, according to which the defendants sapindas are entitled to suit land to the exclusion of the last male holders sisters daughter, the plaintiff.
The defendants case, as laid in the written statement, was that the suit property being an agricultural holding, in view of Section 4 2 of the Hindu Succession Act, the inheritance to the estate of Smt.
The following is the genealogy of the parties Dewaji Jiwaji Dhondya Ghusya wife Jhuli Shioba Shyam Punjya Turji last Male d o Janaji Sonu Bhajya Holder Deft.
Gopikabai wife of Mukundrao, shown in the above pedigree table, filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Multai, against the defendant appellant, Bhajya, and Sonu, respondent 2, for possession of Bhumiswami rights in the land companyprised in Khasra Nos.
31 and 166 in the area of Village Kuthkhedi, Tehsil Multai, District Betul, Madhya Pradesh.
Ghusya died before the Settlement of 1918 and thereafter, this land was held by his son, Punjya, who died in the year 1936.
Sarji died on November 6, 1956, and thereupon this dispute about the inheritance to the land left behind by Smt Sarji, has arisen between the parties.
It is alleged by the plaintiff that Bhajya and Sonu, defendants, took forcible possession of the suit land after the death of Smt.
The suit land originally belonged to Ghusya son of Dewaji.
In the result, the plaintiffs appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial companyrt was restored.
The trial companyrt decreed Smt.
On Punjyas death, the holding devolved on Punjyas widow, Smt.
180/ as damages for the crop removed by the defendants.
Gopikabai, claims that she being the daughter of Smt.
1 Smt.
1 Smt.
Both the parties claim on the basis of Hindu Law.
Nahar Hari Singh v. Dukalluni and Sitabai v. Kothulal were cited.
Sarji Gopikabai Wife of Mukundrao Pltff.
This appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Apart from possession, the plaintiff claimed Rs.
The plaintiff respondent, Smt.
respdt.
Sarji.
Sarji.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
