RAGHUNATH RAMCHANDRA JERE Vs. RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN JERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara dismissing the plaintiff's suit for partition against his, father, defendant No, 1, his grand-mother defendant No.14 and twelve others to whom the ancestral properties were alienated by his father. He claimed to have those alienations set aside on the ground that they were not supported by any legal necessity nor were they for the benefit of the family and that they were due to the immorality of his father. A preliminary objection was raised in the lower Court that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, but that objection was overruled and the suit was tried on its merits. As the alleged misjoinder has not affected the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court, the decree of the lower Court cannot be reversed or altered in appeal on that ground by reason of the provisions of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the appeal has to be disposed of on the merits.

(2.) DEFENDANT No.1 was born in 1895 and he married the mother of the plaintiff in 1910 when he was about fifteen years of age. Thereafter he went to live with his father-in-law, Govind Ganesh Riswadkar, who was serving in the Police Department. In his absence and during his minority the family property was managed by his mother, defendant No.14, with the help of her brother, defendant No.2. DEFENDANT No.1 lived with his father-in-law till 1914 when he was transferred to Goghav. Thereafter he began to visit his village Ped off and on, and being dissatisfied with the management of the estate carried on by his mother and her brother (defendant No.2), he filed a suit against them to recover possession of his property (suit No.109 of 1914 ). The suit was eventually compromised on November 5, 1914, and by the consent decree (exhibit 78) two lands were given by way of gift to defendant No.2 as remuneration for his having managed his property during his minority. Two other properties had already been sold to defendant No.2 and that sale also was confirmed by the consent decree. Two lands and a portion of the ancestral house were given to defendant No.14 for her maintenance and residence. Even thereafter defendant No.1 lived for some time with his father-in-law at Goghav, and finally returned to his village Ped in 1917. It is alleged that he then fell into bad company and began to dissipate the property. It appears that between the years 1917 and 1930 he alienated the bulk of his ancestral property. The plaintiff was born on February 2, 1918, and this suit was filed during his minority by his mother's father, Govind Ganesh Riswadkar, as his next friend, who has challenged all the alienations effected by defendant No.1 both before and after the birth of the plaintiff. The major portion of the monies realized by defendant No.1 from the sale or mortgage of the ancestral lands is said to have been taken by him for building a house, constructing wells in two fields called Bhutoba's field and Palashacha Mali, for purchasing an engine for pumping water, and for domestic needs. Though a good deal of oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the plaintiff to prove that his father was leading a dissolute life, was addicted to drink, ganja and women, and was dissipating the property, no attempt has been made to connect any of the alienations directly with his acts of immorality. An attempt is made to prove that as a matter of fact no house was built by defendant No.1 nor was any engine for pumping water actually purchased. It is also pointed out that so much money must not have been spent in sinking or constructing the wells.

(3.) THE other alienations mentioned in the plaint are not now challenged, and the result is that the appeal will have to be partially allowed and the paintiff awarded his share in the light of the above findings.