SHANKAR RAMCHANDRA IPARKAR Vs. BHANUDAS SHANKAR IPARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before me are the heirs and legal representatives of original defendant No.1, who has filed this appeal against the decree for partition passed by the trial Court in flavour of plaintiffs and defendant No. 4. The original plaintiffs are respondents Nos,1and 2 and original defendant No. 1 is respondent No. 3 before me. Original defendants Nos. 4 to 7 are respondents Nos. 5 to 8 before me. Original defendants Nos. 2 and 3 appear in this appeal is two-fold capacity (i) their individuals capacity (ii) in their capacity of heirs of deceased defendant Nos. 1. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

(2.) For understanding the claim of plaintiffs, it is useful referring to the genealogy which is as follow : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_434_BCR1_1987Image1.jpg</IMG> One Ramchandra had two brother, Hanmanta and Laxman, reference to Hanmanta and Laxman is only for the purpose of understanding the relationship between the parties and the witnesses. Hanmantas son Bajirao has been examined by the plaintiffs as witness No. 2. This bajirao also happens to be the brother-in-law of defendant No. 4 (wifes sisters husband). Laxman had a son Ranganath. He also figures , through remotely in this litigation. However, we are concerned mainly with the branch of Ramchandra because, admittedly, a partition had taken place amongst Ramchandra, Hanmanta and Laxman and the suit property, it is alleged by the plaintiffs, was joint family property in the hands of defendant No. 1 who is the son of Ramchandra. Ramchandra had to wives Rambai and Krishnabai. From Ramabai, he got one son Shankar, defendant No. 1. From Krishnabai, he got a son Vishwanath, who is defendant No. 4. Shankar also had two wives one Chandrabhaga who died in the year 1942 and the other Manjulabai who died in the year 1952. Ramchandra himself died sometime between 1912 and 1914 . The plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that he died in 1912-13. In the evidence, one of the plaintiffs stated that he died in the year 1914. Shankar got two sons from Chandrabhaga; one Ganpat who is defendant No. 2, born in the year 1929 and other Bhaskar who is defendant No. 3 born in the year 1939. From Manjulabai, Shankar got two other sons Bhanudas who is plaintiff No. 1 and who was born in the year 1920 and Nivrutti who is plaintiff No. 2 who was born in the year 1922. Ramchandras other son Vishwanath who is defendant No. 4 has four sons, Ramchandra, defendant No. 5 Vasant defendant No. 6 , Ramesh defendant No. 7 and Madhukar defendant No. 8

(3.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint, reference to which will be presently as and when required. Contention of the plaintiffs was that Ramchandra died sometime in the year 1912-13 leaving behind his two sons as stated above. It was contended that Ramchandra left behind him some lands, a house and some moveable properties such as bullocks and agricultural implements as also some mango trees. It is this mango trees which played a significant and interesting role in this entire litigation and in a sense, the plaintiffs are trying to reap the fruits of this mango trees by claiming share in this properties because according to the case of the plaintiffs sought to be made out in evidence, it is from the income of these mango trees that all these properties were purchased by defendant No. 1. The pleadings show that there existed no mango trees, the income of which could have been used by the 1st defendant for purchase of any the suit lands. Hence, it is useful setting out at this stage itself the averments made by the plaintiffs in the plaint vis-a-vis these mango trees and other properties inherited by defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 4 From their father Ramchandra as ancestral properties.