On appeal, at the instance of Krishna the appellate companyrt, on evaluation of evidence recorded the finding in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment pages 82 85 of the paper book thus Thus, the evidence on record and the strong presumption in favour of joint family leads me to hold that the joint family companyprised of deceased plaintiff Krishna and defendant Kondi existed till upto 10.11.1964 and all the suit houses, suit open plot purchased during the period from 29.11.1945 till upto 22.4.1960 Were joint family properties having 1/2 share to deceased plaintiff Krishna arid the defendant.
146 to North.
Accordingly directed the partition by metes and bounds by appointing Court Commissioner etc.
The deceased plaintiffs after severance of joint family effected on 10.11,1964 has filed the instant suit on 26,4,1976 namely within 12 years for his 1/2 share for all those suit properties in general and more and more particularly the suit lands bearing revision survey No.
135 of 1976 in the trial companyrt, namely, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara for partition of the properties by metes and bounds in equal share and for separate possession thereof.
9 to 12 described in para 1B were also in the possession and cultivation of plaintiff and defendant till upto 1963.
4 SCR 213 The following Order of the Court was delivered Unsuccessful defendant No.1, Kondiba, is the appellant before us.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit only in respect of two items, the land bearing Survey Nos.
The said yield surely enabled theft after severance of the joint family to purchase the erstwhile family tenanted lands on 27.1.1967 under the sale deed Exh, 131.
The suit houses and plot are part and parcel of erstwhile big building wada belonged to Patluba Kirdat and the map in respect of said Wada available from the Reg.
930 of 1940 instituted by defendants instant paternal brother or Laxman Kirdat against the defendants, his father Bhiku and two uncles in at Exh.
The perusal of 7 X 12 extract of the Suit lands at serial Nos.
All these clinching circumstances companytained me to set aside the decree of the lower companyrt allowing the appeal and I pass the following order.
1,250 as companytribution towards their price paid by the defendant.
5, 7, 8 in para 1B of the plaint of companyrse subject to payment of Rs.
1, 3 and 6, which were already partitioned, remained to be his self acquired properties.
It clearly disclosed that the deceased Bhiku owned C.T.S. Nos.
The original plaintiff, Krishna, the appellants real brother laid Suit No.
4 in Para 1A of the plaint has been also purchased on 22.4.1960 from lady Savitribai when the joint family existed with full force of monitory nucleus of all the suit lands in possession of the said family till 1960.
2,500 by the defendant as a tenant in companymon brother Krishna on 27.1.1967, In such state of affairs, the plaintiffs are surely entitled to 1/2 share even out of the lands described at serial Nos.
The C.T.S. No.
1 was suggested, found to be victim of leprosy land this circumstance also caused the deceased plaintiff to sell his interest out of C.T.S. No.
So far the suit lands at serial Nos, 7, 8 are companycerned.
1994 SUPPL.
221/4B and 152/5 which have been purchased for Rs.
146 through CT.S. No.
Civil Suit No.
143 to South while the C.T.S. No.
The map Exh.
144 is bounded by C.T.S. No.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
Moreover, even the tenanted lands at serial Nos.
141 and 142 to West and by C. T.S. No.
It is companytended by Mr. Vishwanatha Iyer, learned Senior companynsel for the appellant that having entered into military service and after his dis charge, the appellant companytinued to companytribute for the acquisition of the properties in his own name and, therefore, items except items at serial Nos.
141, 142 and 143 are purchased during the period from 29.11.1945 to 11.2.1956 when the joint family companyprised of plaintiff and defendant existed.
Moreover, the C.T.S. No.
147 and the said passage caused loss of 2 khans one khan from each C.T.S. No.
147 is bounded by CT.S. No.
It is also on record that in the year 1964 itself the plaintiff No.
310 D described at serial No.
144 and 147 shown in that map.
144 and to companystruct his own house in the C.T.S. No.
Consequently it directed partition of suit properties described at serial Nos, 1 to 4 in para 1A of the plaint and at serial Nos.
The said Laxman Kirdat under the decree obtained the passage to his CT.S. No.
144 arid to his C.T.S No.
