KHANDACHARYA MARTANDACHARYA Vs. GOVINDACHARYA NARAYANACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit by a purchaser from Radhabai of certain property in which, he alleged, that she possessed a life interest. He was resisted by the defendant, who is a second cousin of Radhabai s husband. It may be convenient to state the relations in which the persons, mentioned in the judgments of the Courts below and in the arguments here, stand to each other. Starting from the common ancestor Bapu, he had two sons, Venkatesh and Dhondu, Dhondo had a son Martand ; Martand had a son Khando, who is the defendant in the present suit. Venkatesh had two sons Balacharya and Krishnacharya. Balacharya had two sons Keshav and Venkatesh. Keshav left a widow Radhabai and Venkatesh left a widow Ramabai. Venkatesh predeceased Keshav, who predeceased Ramabai, and last Ramabai died leaving, as the plaintiff contends, Radhabai as the sole surviving gotraja sapinda of that line, and therefore possessed of a life interest in all the property of the family, starting from the elder Venkatesh, whether or not the members of that family have divided amongst themselves.

(2.) The lower appellate Court, dealing with the suggested issue, was there a partition or not between the brothers Keshav and Venkatesh, held that it made no difference since, in any event, Radhabai had acquired a life interest in all the property of the family. To this finding exception has been taken here and we have been asked to frame an issue and remand it for trial to the lower appellate Court, whether or not the brothers Venkatesh and Keshav separated.

(3.) On a first view it certainly appeared that that was a material issue, but on further arguments and a consideration of the authorities, to which we have been referred, we are of opinion that the learned Judge below was correct in the conclusion he has somewhat summarily stated.