ANAND RAO ZINGARAJI Vs. GOVINDRAO ZINGARAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' second appeal against a decree for partition and separate possession of respondent-plaintiff's half share in two salt fields.

(2.) The fields in suit are Survey No. 66 Area 18 acres 39 gunthas and Survey No. 60, Area 1.4 acres of village Mokhed Pimpari in Murtizapur taluka of Akola district. The parties are related and their admitted relationship is disclosed by the following genealogy : - Tulsabai = Zingraji = X (died in 1953) (Died on 21-4-1950) | Anandrao=Mankarna Govindrao (deft. No. 1) | (deft. No. 2) (Plaintiff) Himmatrao (deft. No. 3) Zingraji and his sons formed a Joint Hindu Family. According to the plaintiff, on 22-5-1945 during the life-time of Zingraji, he effected a partition of his property between himself and his two sons under the registered partition deed, Exhibit 39. The plaintiff's case was that the field Survey No. 66 was allotted in that partition to Zingraji's share, certain other properties being allotted to the shares of two sons. After the partition, Zingraji purchased the second field Survey No. 60. Thus the plaintiff's case was that at the time of Zingraji's death in 1950, he owned these two fields as his separate property. Tulsabai, the natural mother of Anandrao defendant No. 1, died in 1953. The plaintiff's case was that after the death of Zingraji and Tulsabai, the two sons Govindrao plaintiff and Anandrao defendant No. 1 owned a joint equal interest in these two fields by inheritance. In 1965, Govindrao, the respondent, instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in these two fields. The appellants denied these allegations. Both the Courts below have found the partition of 1945 proved and on that basis have awarded a decree to the respondent-plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit fields. It is against this concurrent decision of that two Courts below that the original defendants have preferred this second appeal.

(3.) The finding about the partition effected by Zingraji on 22-5-1945 is concurrently recorded by the Courts below and must be treated as conelusive in this second appeal. That finding is well supported, since it is based on the proof of the registered partition deed, Exhibit 39 dated 22-5-1945. As rightly observed by the lower appellate Court, there is no plea of reunion between Zingraji and the appellants: