MARTAND PANDHARINATH CHAUDHARI Vs. RADHABAI KRISHNARAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit for partition brought by one Radhabai, daughter of a Hindu by name Krishnarao. Defendant No. 1 is a purchaser from Narayan who was defendant No. 5. This Narayan was Krishnarao's brother and died after the decision of the suit in the trial Court.

(2.) Hari, Mahadev, Narayan and Krishnarao, were four brotherers. At one time they formed a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School, They had income from a jahagir and they owned other properties too. It is admitted by both the parties to this suit that the suit lands are ancestral properties. The four brothers effected a partition of. the jahagir income amongst themselves long time back and as a consequence each one of them got a two annas share which was separately paid to them. In course of time, Hari separated first in respect of the rest of the property and later on Mahadev separated. The question in this case is whether Narayan and Krishnarao held the property in suit as joint tenants so that on the death of Krishnaro in 1918 the whole property would be governed by the rule of survivorship and vest in Narayan.

(3.) It is important to note that in the Record of Rights Narayan and Krishnarao were regarded as holders of eight annas share each in respect of the suit lands. After the death of Krishnarao in 1918, the name of Yamunabai, Krishnarao's widow, was entered in his place in the Record of Rights as the holder of eight annas share. No doubt, Narayan and Krishnarao were described as joint holders in the Record of Rights, but it is important to note that Narayan was senior to Krishnarao, and if the property had descended by survivorship, Yamunabai's name would not appear at all.