JAMNADAS Vs. RADHABAI WIFE OF BALLABHDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's First Appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of certain immovable properties, and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the plaintiff's enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) THE plaintiff Mt. Radhabai is the widow of Ballabhdas who died on 8-4-1928 (wrongly stated as 1929 in the plaint ). Before his death Ballabhdas executed a will whereby he bequeathed his property to Narayandas. This devolution was, however, not to take effect till the death of Mt. Radhabai. Narayandas, the father of the defendant-appellant, died in 1942. During the minority of the defendant the plaintiff executed a will in his favour, but she subsequently cancelled it. The plaintiff alleged that after the death of her husband she maintained Narayandas and allowed him to manage her property, which he did till his death in 1942. After narayandas's death she maintained the defendant, and by way of 'precaution', executed a will in his favour. The defendant, however, misappropriated the rents realised by him and also got rent-notes executed in his own favour. On being apprised of these facts the plaintiff cancelled her will in his favour. In that will the defendant had obtained an incorrect admission from the plaintiff to the effect that she had adopted his father. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant and his father were the agents of the plaintiff and managed the property in that capacity. But taking advantage of his position the defendant usurped some of the property, The plaintiff, therefore, sued for declaration of her title, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

(3.) THE defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had adopted his father Narayandas to her deceased husband Ballabhdas, and that after his adoption Narayandas acquired title to the property left behind by Ballabhdas, and he remained in possession ,of it in this capacity till his death. Thereafter the defendant inherited the property from his father, and continued his possession of the same as an owner thereof. The defendant contended that Narayandas had throughout his life managed the property in his own right and recovered rent from the tenants. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped from challenging the adoption of his father; since she herself had effected it -and had from time to time admitted having done so. The defendant's father had, on the faith of the plaintiff's representations, given up his natural father's family and his claim to the property of his natural father. Lastly the defendant set up the plea that he and his father narayandas had been in adverse possession of the suit property for more than 12 years.