RATAN Vs. BISAN RAMCHANDRA PARDESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision applications arise out of an application filed by Bisan the son of Ramchandra Pardeshi against his uncle Deochand Bisan Pardeshi under Section 41 (3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for recovery of possession of the moveable and immoveable property on the ground that the latter was put in possession of the property as his guardian and on attaining majority he was entitled to get possession of his property from his uncle Deochand.

(2.) Revision Application No. 235 of 1977 has been preferred by Deochand and Revision Application No. 401 of 1977 has been preferred by Bisan, who claims possession of the property.

(3.) The facts in so far as they are material may be stated thus. On the death of the father of the applicant Bisan, his mother Kashibai got remarried in about the year 1952. At the time of the death of his father, his son was only 2 years old, and Kashibai's remarriage took place within a year after the death of his father. In the circumstances, he was brought up and maintained by his paternal aunt Ramiyabai. It is the case of the applicant that his father Ramchandra left behind him agricultural land bearing Survey No. 102 and a house bearing Gram Panchayat No, 608 situated at Ambai and also moveables more particularly described in the application. According to the applicant, he became the absolute owner of his father's property after his death in view of the re-marriage of his mother, and the said properties were in possession of the opponent as the guardian of the property of the applicant who was then a minor. On his attaining majority, the applicant had filed Civil Suit No. 17 of 1971 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sillod, against Deochand for recovery of the property in dispute. In the plaint, the applicant had contended that in view of the provisions of Section 41 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, he was entitled to get possession of the property and the opponent wag also liable to render account of income and expenditure of the property. The opponent Deochand raised a contention in his written statement that the applicant's suit under Section 41 of the Act in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sillod, was not maintainable. The learned Civil Judge upheld this contention and passed an order returning the plaint to be presented in the District Court. This order was passed on Sept. 5, 1975. Thereafter the applicant filed the present application on Sept. 17, 1975 under Section 41 (3) of the Guardians and Wards Act.