RAO MOTESINGH Vs. CHANDRA BALI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal, whose suit was dismissed by Shri V.S. Deshpande, First Civil Judge Class I, Khandwa, on 30 -4 -1952 in Civil Suit No. 18 -A of 1951. The original plaintiff -appellant Rao Ranitsingh died and the present appellant Rao Motisingh has been substituted in his place. The original, defendant -respondent Thakur Narayansingh also died and the present respondents 1 (a) to 1 (e) were substituted in his place.

(2.) THE appellant filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises for possession of two Sir fields Khasra Nos. 91 and 133 and one Khudkast field namely, Khasra No. 69/1 of mouza Saktapur, as also for a declaration that the respondent is separate from the plaintiff with effect from 5 -1 -1951, and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the plaintiff's management of the family estate, which he claimed to hold by right of primogeniture.

(3.) THE following is the genealogical tree. Thedefendant however, admitted the same from Pirthesingh downwards. In view of the fact that thefamily tree was proved in the earlier case, we hold that the whole of the genealogical tree is proved. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_157_TLMPH0_1958.htm</FRM> The plaintiffs ancestors were Rajputs, who settled down in the district of Nimar some time during the advent of the Muslim rule. They are known as Bhilala family of Sailani and Bakhatgarh and belong to a sect of Rajputs called Baghels. The defendant -respondent denied the origin and the history of the family and also denied that it was governed by the rule of primogeniture. On the other hand, he alleged that the general Hindu law governs inheritance and succession in the family. He further contended that even if the family be found to have followed the custom of primogeniture in some distant past, at the time when Mohansingh was alive, the family property was divided between him and his brothers Madrupsingh andChatarsingh, sons of Prithvisingh who were then alive. He also averred that the political pension granted by the British Government was divided by the three sons of Prithvisingh and the political pension has always been enjoyed by all members of the family including widows, who were given a share according to their interest in the joint family. The defendant further denied that the members of the family were in possession of items of the family property as compassionate allowance and not by virtue of their own right as coparceners.