(1.) THE legal position that emerged as a result of the partition, was that the property got separated as property representing the share of her husband when B demanded and obtained the fields as her share in the partition of the joint family prope 4 of the plaint which include khasra No. 3/4K and Khasra No. 3/3Gh, which were the subjectmatter of the earlier suit filed by Panduranp and Aba and, in addition. Khasra No. 4/18 and Khasra 4/19 both also situate at village Akola. She also claimed in the alternative a decree directing partition of the property claimed to be a joint family property described,e fields mentioned in Para 4 of the plaint and also put in their possession. This was the position till 1957 summer. The appellant then alleged that her mother Indirabai remarried by Pat and as a result of this remarriage of her mother, the four fields came in possession of the appellant, but it was in June 1957 that the defendants Aba and Pandurang took forcible possession of the fields. Thus the cause of action for the suit according to appellant Manda arose on account of her dispossession by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In the alternative she claimed that she was the sole heir of her mother entitled to the immoveable property mentioned in, plaint Para 4 and also the sole survivor of her parents, i.e. her father and was entitled to separate possession of one -third share in the property mentioned in Schedule A.
(2.) THE defence raised by the respondents in resisting Manda's suit and in support of their own suit appears to be more or less common. The defendants admitted the existence of joint family after the death of Balaji i.e. their father and also that Haribhau died in a state of jointness possessing joint family property as mentioned in Schedule A and that Haribhau had one -third share in the property. The respondents also admitted that on the death of Haribhau his widow Indirabai i.e. appellant's mother, had a one -third share in the Joint family property but they denied that there was any partition between the appellant's mother Indirabai, and themselves as alleged in April 1951 or that the fields mentioned in Para 4 were given in their possession According to the respondents, Indirabai had filed Civil Suit No. 124 -A of 1953 which was decided on 5 -11 -1954 against the respondents for partition and separate possession of her one -third share in the joint family property; that this suit was ultimately compromised and Indirabai was given the two fields Khasra Nos. 3/4K and 3/3Gh of Akola for enjoyment till her lifetime according to Hindu Women's Rights to property Act. They also all alleged that the respondents had reserved to themselves right to take possession of those fields after her death, civil or natural and that this was expressly agreed to between the parties in the compromise. They denied that Khasra Nos. 4/18 and 4/19 were allotted to Indirabai in a prior partition As regards possession of the fields. they denied that Indirabai was in possession from March 1951 to 1957 summer or that Indirabai remarried on 20th July 1956. They merely alleged that on account of civil death of Indirabai probably meaning her remarriage, the fields had come in possession of the respondents on or about 1 -4 -1957 and that they are in possession of the same as owners as a result of the compromise decree. They denied the claim of the appellant for a one -third or any share as heir of her father in the joint family property or its partition and separate possession They denied the claim for compensation or mesne profits which was styled as premature. As regards the cause of action for their own suit (Civil Suit No. 92 -A of 1957), the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alleged that Keshao, the maternal grand -father of appellant Manda, had tried to take forcible possession and created disturbance in their possession on 28th June 1957. The suit was filed by the respondents for a declaration and confirmation of their possession and for restraining the defendants from interfering with the same.
(3.) THE learned trial Court found that the claim of the appellant that there was a partition between the plaintiff's mother Indirabai and the defendants was proved. He also found that at this partition all the four pieces of land described in para 4 of the plaint were allotted to the share of the plaintiff's mother. He found that in Civil suit No. 124 -A of 1953 filed by the appellant's mother only khasra Nos. 3/4K and khasra No. 3/4Gh were allotted to her and there was an agreement between the appellant's mother and the two respondents that Indirabai would have only life interest in these fields and that after her death the same would revert to the defendants. As regards legal effect of the remarriage of Indirabai, the trial Court held that the respondents i.e. Aba and Pandurang, became the owners of Khasra Nos. 3/4K and 3/3Gh on account of the remarriage which the Court found had taken place on 29th June 1956 and not on 20th July 1956. It was also found that the appellant had not inherited the suit fields after the remarriage of her mother and the appellant had no share or one -third share in the joint family property as claimed by her. The trial Court also found that the defendants entered into possession of the fields on 1 -4 -57 and as appellant's title to the property was negatived on his findings the suit was dismissed. On the point of quantum of compensation the Court found that if the appellant was held entitled to any compensation, it would be Rs. 60 and not Rs. 100 as claimed by her in the year 1957 -58. Against this judgement and decree which were common to both the suits appellant -Mands preferred Civil Appeal and the two points, which were decided by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court, were whether the present respondents proved that the suit property would revert to them after the remarriage of Indirabai, which he found in favour of the respondents and he also found that it was not proved that Indirabai by compromise had altered the mode of succession and curtailed the right of defendant No. 1 i.e. the present appellant. There is only one finding of the learned Judge of the two courts below which required to be noticed The lower appellate Court also confirmed the finding of the trial Court that there was a partition between Indirabai on the one hand, and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the other, in 1951, as found by the trial Court. It was also, therefore held that at that partition, the four pieces of land described in Para 4 of the plaint of the appellant's suit were allotted to Indirabai.