GOVINDRAO Vs. RAJABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties to this suit belong to a family of Mahratta Brahmins from Berar, who ever since the year 1839 have been carrying on business as money-lenders or bankers at Pardi, three of four miles from Nagpur, in the Central Provinces. The property in suit, which is valued at two crores of rupees (considerably more than one and a half millions sterling), was acquired in the business carried on by the senior branch of the family at Pardi and in recent years at Nagpur. In 1916 Narayan Rao II (so, described to distinguish him from the common ancestor of the same name), who was then the sole survivor of the-senior branch, died, leaving an infant daughter, but no male issue. Thereupon Govindrao, plaintiff 1, who, with his son, plaintiff 2, now represents the junior branch of the family, claimed to-have become entitled by survivorship to-the whole of the suit property as the joint family property of the undivided family, and in 1917 filed the present suit in the District Court of Nagpur, impleading, as defendant 1 Narayan Rao II's daughter, and, as defendant 2, a boy who is alleged to have been adopted by his widow. This adoption was disputed by the plaintiffs, and was made the subject of an issue which it was found unnecessary to decide. The relationship of the parties and their descent from the-common ancestor are shown in the following genealogical table :

(2.) The defendants' case is that the business was the separate property of Narayana 1's eldest son, Gopal, from whom they are descended, that Gopal's youngest brother, Sonbaji, plaintiff 1's adoptive father, never had any interest in it, but had carried on a separate money-lending business in his own name at Pardi from 1865 until his death in 1880, and that after attaining majority plaintiff 1 had carried on this business for more then twenty years until the death of Narayan Rao II without putting forward any claim to share in the business or property of the senior branch.

(3.) Very numerous issues were framed by the District Court with reference to the specific, allegations in the pleadings, but the questions which arise on the evidence, and on which the case has beer disposed of in the lower Courts, may be formulated as follows : I. Was the money-lending business, which was started in the name of the family god in 1839 at Pardi, where the four brothers were living together, and was managed by the eldest son Gopal, a joint family business, or was it Gopal's separate business ? II. If the business was originally a joint family business, was there a separation in 1865, some years after the death of the second and third brothers, when Gopal began to carry on business in his own name instead of in the name of the family god, and Sonbaji began to carry on business in his own name at Pardi, and were there two businesses thenceforth, the separate properties of each of the two brothers ? III. Is the suit as to the whole or part of the suit property barred by limitation ?