SANJA BANDAJI Vs. AHMEDABAD JAYBHARAT COTTON MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following genealogy shows the relationship between the parties to this dispute. Anantbhat died on 12-11-1924. His son Dadbhat had gone out of the joint family by adoption before the death of Anantbhat. Vasudeo had predeceased Anantbhat and he died in 1907. Harbhat the eldest son was alive at the date of the death of Anantbhat. Anantbhat held at the time of his death several properties two out of which were S. Nos. 110 and 111. After the death of Anantbhat there was a partition of some of the joint family properties. But S. Nos. 110 and 111 were not divided because S. No. 111 was a Dharmadaya property, and it was assumed that the Vat Hukums which were in operation in the former Kolhapur State would not permit partition of that property. S. No. 110 was regarded as accretion of S. No. 111 and therefore not liable to partition. In 1929 the State Government issued a Vat Hukum whereby the Dharmadaya properties were regarded not as Inam properties, but as Rayatava properties and therefore partible. The plaintiff who is the son of Vasudeo filed Suit No. 328 of 1942 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hatkanangale for a half share in S. Nos. 110 and 111 on the footing that he was entitled on partition to a share in those properties as they were the properties of the joint family to which he and the first defendant belonged. The suit was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Kagal, and was numbered 163 Of 1949.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants. They contended that the plaintiff was not the owner of half of the share in the suit properties, and that the plaintiff's suit in any event was barred by the law of limitation. The learned trial Judge accepted the contentions raised by the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(3.) IN appeal to the District Court at Kolhapur, the learned Assistant Judge reversed the decree passed by the. trial Court and awarded to the plaintiff a half share in the suit property together with mesne profits to be ascertained under Order 20, Rule 12, Clause (c), C. P. C. The learned appellate Judge also awarded Rs. 375/-to the plaintiff by way of mesne profits. Defendants 3 and 4 have come to. this Court in second appeal.