BAI KAMLA Vs. BABUBHAI SHIVSHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the properties, moveable and immovable, mentioned in the plaint, with mesne profits, alleging that he was the son of one Shivshankar Bulakhiram, who died on November 18, 1921, and that the properties, which were claimed in the suit, were ancestral properties of himself and his father. Defendant No. 1 is another widow of Shivshankar, while Defendant No. 2, is his step-sister. Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 were added as persons who were aiding Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in resisting the plaintiff's claim to the possession of the suit properties. It was alleged that Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had poisoned the mind of the deceased against the plaintiff's mother, so as to bring about a disagreement between them, and that all the defendants, in collusion with each other, got up false evidence to prove that the plaintiff was illegitimate, and that his mother was of immoral character, and that the deceased had made a Will.

(2.) An application had been made to the District Court for the appointment of a guardian of the properties and person of the minor, when the properties were allowed to remain with the defendants; on their giving security by an order of July 8, 1922, which suggested that a regular suit should be brought to establish the plaintiff's right to the properties. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 put in a written statement, Exhibit 13, pleading that the plaintiff was illegitimate, though admitting that he was the son of Bai Reva and that the suit properties were ancestral. Defendants Nos. 7 and 8, though served, did not appear. Plaintiff put in an inventory, Exhibit 34, as the list of the properties he claimed/ The Court found pro forma against the absent defendants that plaintiff was born of Bai Reva, the wife of Shivshankar. On the issues raised between the contesting parties the Judge found: 1. That the defendants did net prove that the deceased and Bai Reva had no access to each ether at any time when the plaintiff could have been begotten. 2. That the Will relied upon by the defendants had not been made by the deceased when in a sound disposing state of mind.

(3.) That the Will was net binding upon the plaintiff and could not affect his rights.