Learned companynsel appearing for the defendants, assails the decree of partition granted to the plaintiff respondent but does number dispute the legal position settled by the two Judges Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kalgonda Babgonda Patil vs. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil etc.
The suit filed by the deceased plaintiff number represented by his legal representatives impleaded as respondents herein for partition of the erstwhile Watan or Inam lands of his family was dismissed by the trial companyrt.
The First Appellate Court by judgment of reversal decreed the suit of the plaintiff and it has been companyfirmed by the High Court in second appeal recognising the plaintiffs right of partition of the suit lands to the extent of 1/3 share.
Similar argument based on adverse possession and limitation has been repelled by three Judges Bench of this Court in the case of of Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil Supra and the following legal position explained therein fully answers the plea against the defendants The possession of the family property by a member of the family cannot be adverse to the other members but must be held to be on behalf of himself and other members.
The suit thereafter was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
