D K BHIWANDKAR Vs. P R BHIWANDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal by the original Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and 6 respectively takes exception to the Judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay dated 27/10/1980 in Suit No. 5729 of 1967. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are the original plaintiffs. Respondent No. 5 is the original Defendant No. 7 and Respondents Nos. 6 to 9 are the original Defendants Nos. 8 to 11 respectively. The suit property is immovable property situated at 36 M. Mugbhat, Cross Lane, Girgaon, Bombay. The property was owned by one Moreshwar Bhai Rele who died intestate in Bombay on or about 26/08/1916. The agreed genealogy in respect of the family, as produced on record, is as follows :-

(2.) THE Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed suit for the following reliefs :-

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the parties are governed by the law of inheritance as applicable to Bombay City, which is known as "mayukha". In the circumstances, there can be no dispute that the suit property was inherited by Radhabai as her stridhan property under the Mayukha law, as applicable to the parties. Stridhan is divided in two classes - one technical and second, non-technical. Insofar as inheritance of the suit property, the same is a non-technical stridhan. There is no dispute on this position. It is in this background the suit for the aforesaid reliefs came to be filed before the City Civil Court. The trial Court has held that the parties are governed by Mayukha Law and the property was inherited by Radhabai as non-technical stridhan. In view of the provisions of Mayukha law, the sons would get precedence for inheritance before the grand sons. The trial Court has also found that undisputedly the father of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 had pre-deceased his mother Radhabai, whereas Radhabai died on 14-7-55 leaving behind her surviving two sons Ramnath and Ambernath as her only heirs. Accordingly, Ramnath and Ambernath have inherited the non-technical stridhan property of Radhabai in equal shares. The defendants-appellants herein had raised the plea that the suit as filed by the Respondents-plaintiff was barred by limitation. Even that plea has been considered by the trial Court and on analysing relevant materials on record has found that the defendants failed to establish that they had given any noticed to the plaintiff or that the plaintiff had knowledge that possession of the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 was in displacement of the rights of the plaintiffs or that the plaintiffs had reason to know that their rights were invaded. Having recorded that opinion, the trial Court proceeded to hold that the suit as filed by the Plaintiffs, in the year 1967 was within limitation and that the defendants failed to establish the plea of adverse possession. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (h) with modification that it should be defendant Nos. 2 to 6 where the words 1 to 6 occurred. This decision is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.