NARAYAN Vs. MAHADEORAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment in this appeal shall also govern second appeals nos. 440 of 1964, 441 of 1964 and 803 of 1965.

(2.) ONE Vithobaji died leaving five sons and a widow, namely, Mahadeo Rao, Khushal Rao, Ganpat Rao, Sham Rao, and Vasant Rao and Savitribai.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding inter alia that though there was no legal necessity for the sale, there was no joint Hindu family with the plaintiff as one of its member when the sale in question was held and as there was thus no coparcenary on the date of the suit, the suit claiming exclusive possession of the suit property from the defendant-purchasers was liable to be dismissed. It was held that the written statement dated 17-12-1959 filed by Khushal Rao in Civil Suit No. 33-A of 1959 had the effect of disrupting the joint family.