GANPATI MARUTI Vs. ANANDRAO MARUTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Hari Patlu, who owned certain survey numbers and a house, died on October 23, 1918. The pedigree of the family to which Hari Patlu belonged was as follows: APPAJI | - | | Sagaji Janaji - | | | | Joti Naroji Murari Hari | | | Patlu Laxman Ganu | | - Maruti | | =Haribai Hari Tukaram | (died 23 -10 -1918) Ganpati(Paintiff)

(2.) ON the death of Hari Patlu his property was taken into possession by the revenue authorities and on February 22, 1919, the property was given to one Maruti Babaji father of Ananda (defendant No. 1), who belonged to a different branch of the family unconnected with the branch of Hari Patlu and Maruti Ganu.

(3.) THIS second appeal raises an interesting question under Hindu law. The facts necessary to understand the question are briefly, these: The property in suit which consists of three survey numbers & a house originally belonged to one Hari Patlu Phalke. These lands are (1) Survey No. 5/3 admeasuring 10 gunthas and assessed at Rs. 2, (2) Survey No. 51 admeasuring 5 acres and 12 gunthas and assessed at Rs. 17 -4 -0, and (3) Survey No. 80/2 admeasuring 1 acre and 38 gunthas and assessed at Rs. 8 -2 -0. The owner Hari Phalke was In possession and enjoyment of the property until his death which occurred on 23 -10 -1918. A reference to the pedigree of the family to which Hari belonged will be seen at print page 3. Hari had a brother T'uka -ram. It appears that Tukaram's line is extinct. That pedigree also shows that Hari's ancestor Janaji had a brother by name Sagaji. sagaji's son was one Hari. Hari's son was one Ganu and Ganu's son was one Maruti. Haribai is the widow of Maruti. It is not known when Maruti died. (4a) The plaintiff's case is that he was adopted as a son to her deceased husband by Haribai on 23 -4 -1946. Relying upon this adoption, the plaintiff filed this suit on 18 -3 -1947, to recover possession of the property from defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who are alienees from defendant No. 1. (4b) The plaintiff's claim was resisted by the defendants upon various grounds, and in the end the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. (4c) From the decree made in the suit the plaintiff appealed in the District Court, Satara North, and the learned District Judge confirmed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. From the appellate decree the plaintiff has come up in second appeal.