SRINIVAS KRISHNARAO KANGO Vs. NARAYAN DEVJI KANGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the appellant in the court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Bijapur. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_379_AIR(SC)_1954Image1.jpg</IMG> Siddopant and Krishnarao were members of a joint undivided family. Krishnarao died in 1897 leaving behind a widow, Rukminibai, who is the sixth defendant in the suit. Siddopant died in 1899 leaving him surviving his son, Gundo, who died in 1901 leaving behind a widow, Lakahmibai, who is the fifth defendant. On 16th December, 1901, Lakshmishmibai adopted Devji, who died on 6/05/1935, leaving three sons, defendants Nos. 1 to 3, and a widow, Akkubai, the fourth defendant. On 26/04/1944, Rukminibai adopted the plaintiff, and on 29/06/1944, he instituted the present suit for partition claiming a half share in the family properties.

(2.) 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. 138 and a half share in S. Nos. 133 and 136 inthe village of Ukamnal and a half share in S. Nos. 163, 164 and 168 in the village of Katakanhalli. The other branch was represented by Swamirao, who was entitled for his half share of the Watan lands, to the whole of S. No. 137 and to a half share in S.Nos. 133 and 136 in the village of Ukamnal and to a half share in S. Nos. 163, 164 and 168 in the village of Katakanhalli. Siddopint purchased a house under Exhibit D- 36 and lands under Exhibits D-61 and D-64, and constructed two substantial houses. His grandson, Devji, also built a house. All these properties are set out in Schedules A and B to the plaint, A Schedule consisting of houses and house sites and B Schedule of lands. It is the plaintiff's case that these properties were either ancestral, or were acquired with the aid of joint family funds. He accordingly claims a half share in them as representing Krishnarao.

(3.) 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. 49.00. There is no satisfactory evidence about the income which these lands were yielding at the material period. Rukminibai, P.W. 6, and Akkubai, D.W. 1, gave conflicting evidence on the point. But neither of them could 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 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. 30.00 per annum. ON a consideration of the entire evidence, the trial court put the annual income at Rs. 150.00. ON appeal, the learned Judges of the High court were also of the opinion that the income from the lands could not have been considerable. They characterised the oral evidence of P.W. 6 and D.W. I on the point as worthless. They observed that the assessment of less than a rupee per acre was an indication that the lands were of poor quality. 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. 26.00 and Rs. 10.00 on onerous terms, and they accordingly concluded that the income from the lands could not have beep sufficient even for maintenance.