LAWS(BOM)-1970-3-23

KESU PANDU YELAWANDE Vs. INDUBAI ANKUSH KHANDAGALE

Decided On March 11, 1970
Kesu Pandu Yelawande Appellant
V/S
Indubai Ankush Khandagale Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the appellate judgment dated January 25, 1965 of the learned District Judge, Ahmednagar. The appeal has been filed by the original defendants Nos. 1 and 6. Respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were joined in the appeal as respondents Nos. 2 to 5, but their names have been struck off on account of non -payment of Bhatta.

(2.) THE facts leading to this litigation are that one Pandu died on October 23, 1944. He owned four agricultural lands and two houses in Village Vanjoli, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. The houses bear Nos. 150 and 151. In Survey Nos. 109/2 and 109/3 Pandu owned a half share. He owned Survey Nos. 110 and 195/3 wholly. Pandu left him surviving at his death his widow Rahibai and two sons Kesu, who is defendant No. 1, and Dhondiba, who died in May 1945. The original defendants Nos. 2 to 6 are respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and appellant No. 2 respectively in this appeal and are the sons of Kesu. They derived title under Kesu and so we are not concerned with them. Dhondiba left him surviving his widow Harnabai. She died on May 26, 1960, leaving her surviving her daughter Indubai, the plaintiff. Indubai was born on October 5, 1945. She was a posthumous child of her father. Rahibai, the widow of Pandu, died sometime in 1957,

(3.) WE are concerned with the defence of defendant No. 1 only, because defendants Nos. 2 to 6 derive title under him. Defendant No. 1 contended that the plaintiff was not at all the daughter of Dhondiba. He denied the alleged partition of 1941 and claimed that after the death of Dhondiba in 1945, he had been in possession and in adverse possession of the property claimed by the plaintiff. He, therefore, contended that the suit was barred by the law of Limitation. There were other contentions with regard to defendant No. 1 spending certain amounts on the reconstruction of the houses or on digging a well in Survey No. 110, but we are not concerned with those contentions.