MUDLAPUR MURARI RAO Vs. BALAVANTH DIKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is a dispute regarding the properties of one Gundu Bhat, who died leaving a minor daughter who survived him only a few days. Plaintiffs claim to be the nearest agnates of Gundu Bhat, while defendants are admittedly his sister's sons. The District Judge found plaintiffs case to be true, but held that the sister's sons were the preferential heirs. Plaintiff applied for review of judgment on the ground that it has been held in Kamala Bai V/s. Bhagirathi Bai I.L.R. 38 M. 45, that the agnates are to be preferred to the sister's sons. This ruling had not been brought to the Judge's notice at the original trial and he accordingly revised his original order and gave a decree to plaintiffs. Defendants, appeal both on the merits, and on the ground that it was incompetent for the District Judge to grant a review as none of the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is present in this case.

(2.) On the merits we entirely agree with the District Judge's conclusion that plaintiffs have satisfactorily proved their relationship. Pedigrees filed by Gundu Bhat's father, Giri Bhat, (Exs. L and V) in 1860 at the time of the inam enquiry show that plaintiffs grand-father and Giri Bhat were descended from a common ancestor Venkana Bhat. There are one or two discrepancies in the intervening links of the genealogical trees, but they clearly show the relationship between the families, and there is a remark in Ex. LI, showing that plaintiff's grandfather held an inam in Dombala (Bombay Presidency). This explains their house name of Dombala, the house name of the other branch being Ittigi. There is also the oral evidence of three witnesses (P.Ws. 2, 3 and 9) who are the executors of Gundu Bhat's will, that Gundu Bhat admitted the relationship and even entertained the idea of adopting one of the plaintiffs. These three men were persons enjoying Gundu Bhat's confidence and no reason has been shown for disbelieving their evidence.

(3.) Defendants content themselves with a denial of the relationship, but have no particular case of their own, nor can they point to any specific defect in plaintiffs claim to relationship. We find that plaintiffs are Gundu Bhat's agnates and are entitled to succeed in preference to defendants.