MUDDLAPUR MORARI RAO Vs. BALWANTH DIKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is a dispute regarding the properties of one Gundu Bhat, who died leaving a miner daughter who survived him only a few days. Plaintiffs claim to be the nearest agnates of Gundu Brat 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. Plaintiffs applied for review of judgment on the ground that it has been held in Kamala Bai V/s. Bhagirathi Bai 16 Ind. Cas. 939 : 38 M. 45 : 23 M.L.J. 518 : 12 M.L.T. 499 : (1912) M.W.N. 1166 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 this original order and gave a decree to pla:ntiffs. Defendants appeal both on the merits and on the ground that it was incompetent fir the District judge to grant a review, as none of the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule I, Civil Procedure Code is present in this case.

(2.) On the merits we entirely agree with the District Judge's conclusions that plaintiffs have satisfactorily proved their relationship. Pedigrees filed by Gundu Bhat's father, Giri Bhat, (Exhibits Land V) in 186o at the time of the inam enquiry show that the plaintiff's grandfather and Giri Bhat were descended from a common ancestor Venkana Bhat. There are one or two discrepancies in the intervening links of the geneolgaical trees, but trey clearly shew that relationship between the families, and there is a remark in Exhibit L-1 showing that plaintiff's grandfather held an inam in Dombala (Bombay Presidency). This explains their house name of Dambala, the house of the other branch being Ittigi. There is also the oral evidence of three witnesses (P.Ws. Nos. 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 relation ship 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.