CHUNNU Vs. SUBHETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE relationships and dates set out in the following table are relevant: Sukhlal Lodhi ___________________________|_____________________________ | | | | Chunnu Kisanlal Subheti=Kanhaiya=Mania Chhote (P. 1) | (D. 1) |d. 3-2-07)| (D. 3) | | | Manakchand (Tukaram)=Deoka Kashiram (P. 2) (d. 13-10-07)

(2.) SUKHLAL and Kisanlal died before the present suit was filed on the 8th of September 1924. Kashiram was born on the 25th of May 1907,nearly four months after the death of his father Kanhaiya, and he died in less than five months after his birth His mother Mania took Chhote, Kanhaiya's brother, as her second husband in the following year, that is 1908.

(3.) NOW it is impossible to obtain by prescription anything more than is claimed you cannot keep more than you take If a man asserts that he is the owner of an undivided half share in property, and holds possession of it for twelve years, he becomes the owner of that half share only, not of the whole property. Similarly, Subheti asserted that she had the interest that Kanhaiya's widow would have had in the property if Kashiram had never been born, and she has established her right by prescription to that interest, but to no more. She can keep what she took, although, she had no right to take it; but obviously she cannot keep what she never took and never held. She has by her adverse possession perfected the title she asserted, that is, her own title as Kanhaiya's heir.