(1.) THIS is a first appeal by Plaintiff Ramaji whose suit for a declaration of title to three houses Nos. 190, 580 and 582, New Shukrawari, Nagpur, for possession and for mesne profits was dismissed by the Fifth Additional District Judge, Nagpur. The relevant lacts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:
(2.) ONE Maroti son of Damaji died in 1920 leaving behind him his widow Sarubai and two daughters Jaibai and Vithabai. Plaintiff is the son of Jaibai. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the grandsons of Vithabai, their father Namdeo having predeceased them in 1943. Defendant No. 1 who died during the pendency of the suit was represented by his widow Defendant No. 1 (c) and his two minor sons Defendants Nos. 1 (a) and 1 (b ). , Defendants Nos. 3 to 15 are tenants in occupation of the houses in dispute. It is common ground that Maroti who died in 1920 owned three houses bearing Nos. 190, 579 and 582. The suit relates to two of these houses namely Nos. 190 and 582 and another house bearing No. 580. It is also common ground that after the death of Maroti in 1920 his widow Sarubai who succeeded him and had widow's life interest died in 1921 and that after 1921 the two daughters Jaibai and Vithabai became heirs under the Hindu Law. Plaintiff claims that Marotirao owned house No. 580 in addition to the three properties, admittedly owned by him. It is also the Plaintiff's case that he is the next rever-sioner after the death of Vithabai who died in 1950, her sister Jaibai having predeceased her in 1936. According to the plaintiff, he being the daughter's son of Marotirao, is the next reversioner in preference to defendants Nos, 1 and 2 who are the daughter's son's sons of Marotirao. Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for possession of the houses bearing Nos. 190 and 582 which admittedly belonged to Marotirao and house No. 580 in regard to which there is a dispute as to whether it was the property of Marotirao or not.
(3.) THE defence of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was that house No. 580 never belonged to Marotirao, that the two other houses Nos. 190 and 582 which admittedly belonged to Marotirao had been sold by Sarubai widow of Marotirao to Vithabai in 1921 for the payment of the debts of her husband and for her maintenance and that after the sale-deed, Vithabai, the grandmother of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 became the absolute owner of the two houses. It was also their case that Marotirao was governed by the Bombay School of Hindu law and that the two daughters of Marotirao became absolute owners of Marotirao's property as his heirs. A will, dated 28th December 1949, by Vithabai was also alleged by these two Defendants. But this will ia not the subject of arguments in appeal. They also claimed that they were in adverse possession of the houses for more than 12 years before the suit. In the alternative they claimed that if the plaintiff succeeded in his claim the defendants should be reimbursed to the extent of Rs. 10,000 which were spent on reconstructing the houses Nos. 190 and 582, in view of the provisions of Section 51 of the Transfer ol Properly Act.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN