GOKULSING BHIKARAM PARDESHI Vs. KISANSING GURU LAXMANGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts found by the lower appellate Court, on which the question of law arising upon this second appeal turns, are shortly these.

(2.) Chimnaji wallad Ramji brought a suit on a bond against Mahadevgir Guru. The latter having died during the pendency of the suit, his widow Rahul and his brother Narayangir were brought by Chimnaji on the record as the deceased's legal representatives. The suit ended in a decree, awarding the claim out of the property of the deceased. Before execution, both Rahul and Narayangir died. The decree-holder (Chimnaji) then brought on the record the present respondents as legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor, Mahadevgir, and applied for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the property now in dispute. The respondents denied that they were the legal representatives of the deceased, and that they had any property of his which could be liable for the decree. All these objections were, however, negatived by the Court executing the decree and the property in dispute was attached and sold. The present appellant, having purchased it at the Court-sale, sued to recover possession from the respondents.

(3.) Both the Courts below have disallowed the claim on the ground that the property in dispute was the joint property of the deceased Mahadevgir and the respondents, held by them as co-parceners in a joint Hindu family, and that on Mahadevgir's death the respondents having acquired an exclusive title to it by survivorship, the appellant obtained no title at the Court-sale which he could legally assert as against the respondents.