TATOBA GANU Vs. TARABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question argued in this appeal is about the effect of a deed of gift executed by one Balgonda in favour of plaintiff No. 1 on 9th June 1043. Mr. M. V. Paranjpe who appears for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the deed of gift is a voidable document, while Mr. Y. C. Chandrachud, appearing for defendants Nos. 4 and 5, contends that the deed of gift is void.

(2.) THE facts relevant to the determination of the question may be shortly stated. The first plaintiff is the adopted son of one Yamunabai who died in 1934, the plaintiff having been previously adopted by her in 1926. Yamunbai was the daughter of one Shidu who wag the eldest in a family of four brothers. On the 8th June 1880 a possessory mortgage was executed by one Santai, the widow of Narsinga and the mother of the four brothers, and by the mortgage two fields bearing survey Nos. 366 and 367 were conveyed to one Ishwara for a sum of Rs. 600/ -. It is said that this transaction of mortgage was consented to by Subai, the widow of Shidu, by Naiku, by Jivaba and by Joti. The contesting defendants are defendants Nos. 3 and 5, who are the grandsons of Jivaba. On 23rd April 1914 Yamunatbai executed a sale deed in respect of her one-third share to Paygonda, On the same day another sale deed was executed by defendants Nos. 8 and 9 in regard to the same portion of the property to the same Paygonda. Although, therefore, by the two transactions of sale two-thirds of the property was conveyed, it is now found that the sale-deeds are valid to the extent of a half, one-fourth share in respect of the first sale deed and one-fourth share in respect of the second. On 9th June 1943 Balgonda, the eldest of the three brothers, executed in favour of the first plaintiff a deed of gift and he purported to execute the document as manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his two brothers, Paygonda alias Kakasaheb and Anagonda, The relationship of these three brothers to Paygonda will be seen from the genealogical table set out in the appellate judgment.

(3.) THE plaintiffs of whom plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are purchasers from plaintiff No. 1, filed this suit on the 19th April 1945. They claimed to redeem the mortgage of 1830 and to recover possession upon the basis that the property was the stridhan property of Subai, the widow of Shidu. In the alternative, they claimed to recover, by partition, separate possession of plaintiff No. 1's one-half share conveyed to him under the deed of gift upon the basis that the property was the family property of the four brothers.