SHANKAR RAO Vs. PANDURANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE twelve plaintiffs-respondents filed the present suit in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, under the following circumstances They claimed to be the nearest reversioners of one Sakharam Kolte who died in 1873. Sakharam left no issue, his widow Radhabai alone surviving him. She inherited from her husband a 16 annas share in mouzas Deoli and Khapri (Nagpur). On 30th March 1892, she sold 0-8-0 share in each of these villages to the Defendant-Appellant No. 1's elder brother, A fortnight later, she mortgaged the remaining 0-8-0 shares in both the villages for Rs. 700 to the same vendee, and eventually sold him the latter shares also on 30th September 1895 for Rs. 1,435. Under a private arrangement 0-1-0 share of the second 0-8-0 share was taken back by Radhabai nearly a year after the sale of 1895. The plaintiffs thus sued for possession of 0-15-0 share in two villages named, both now having been amalgamated into the single village named mauza Deoli Peth.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' allegations were that the above-mentioned sale and transaction were executed without legal necessity and were not binding on them as nearest reversioners. At a partition between Defendant 1 and his elder brother, the property fell to the former's share; hence the Defendant 1 and his minor son were sued as being in joint possession of the property. Apart from preliminary objections about the value of the Court-fee payable and the like, the defendants' position was that the plaintiffs were not the nearest reversioners. They further pleaded that both the sale and mortgage of 1892 and the sale of 1895 were for legal necessity, and further that the sale and mortgage transactions of 1892 were consented to by one Gopal Govind Kolte who represented himself then as being the nearest reversioner. Other incidental pleadings were raised on behalf of the defendants, and these will be referred to later as far as may be necessary.

(3.) A decree was accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiffs subject to their paying Rs. 160-1-4 to the defendants in respect of the alleged losses incurred by Defendant 1's brother during three years he had managed the villages on Radhabai's behalf.