ANANDIBAI Vs. SONABAI MAHADEV RAJADHYAKSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal arises out of Spl. Suit No.16 of 1967 on the file of the Civil Judge, Dharwar. The plaintiffs filed the said suit for possession of the suit properties which belonged to one Dattatreya, who died in the year 1966. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were entitled to the, suit properties on the death of Dattatreya as they were his nearest heirs, and that the defendants who were also claiming as the heirs of Dattatreya were not entitled to them. The genealogical tree showing the relationship of the parties is as follows : At a partition which took place amongst the sons of Vishvambhar, the common ancestor referred to in the genealogical tree, Ganapat was allotted the suit properties to his share. Ganapat died leaving behind him two daughters Chimantai and Manakatai and two sons Mahadeo and Dattatreya. On the death of Ganapat, Mahadeo and Dattatreya became entitled to the suit properties by right of survivorship. They continued to be members of joint family until the death of Mahadeo which took place in the year 1923. Mahadeo died leaving behind him his widow Anandibai, defendant 1. Dattatreya became entitled to the suit properties as the sole surviving coporcener of the family. Dattatreya died, unmarried in 1966. His "sisters, Chimantai and Manakatai having predeceased him, plaintiff 1 Sonabai, the daughter of Manakatai and plaintiff 2 Govind, the son of Chimantai, became entitled to the estate left by Dattatreya as his heirs. It was further stated by the plaintiffs that the suit properties were formerly Kulkarni watan lands and that after the coming into force of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan Abolition Act, 1950, the lands were regranted to the deceased Dattatreya on payment of occupancy price. It appeal's that there were certain disputes between the parties before the revenue authorities regarding their respective claims to the suit properties and in view of the same, the plaintiffs filed the above suit for possession of the suit properties and for future mesne profits on the basis of title.

(2.) Defendant 1 contested the suit. In the course of her written statement, she pleaded inter alia, that she had become entitled to the suit properties absolutely by virtue of S.14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the death of Dattatreya, and, that she also became entitled to the suit properties because she was the only member of the family of watandars to whom they belonged.

(3.) On behalf of the plaintiffs one witness was examined before the trial Court and on behalf of the defendants also one witness was examined. Defendant 1 did not enter the witness box. The Court below made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs after rejecting the contentions raised by defendant 1. Hence this appeal by defendant 1. Only the plaintiffs have been impleaded as respondents in this appeal. The other defendants have not been impleaded as parties.