LILAVATI GANPATRAO KAKATIKAR Vs. TAKAPPA BHIMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal raises an interesting question of Hindu law, and the facts giving rise to the suit out of which the appeal arises are these.

(2.) Bhimappa and Ramchandrappa, two brothers, were members of a joint Hindu family. The family owned considerable property. When Bhimappa died, his son Takappa (plaintiff) was but a child. Ramchandrappa died in 1932 leaving Yellappa (defendant No. 1). In 1921, there was a partition between Ramchandrappa and the minor plaintiff with his mother as guardian when the suit property was kept joint. In the partition the eastern half of the property was specified as of the plaintiff's share. Prior to this, on July 18, 1919, during the minority of the plaintiff, Ramchandrappa executed in fervor of one Jinasena Bhattaraka of Kolhapur a deed of gift of the property mentioned in paragraph 1(6) of the plaint. On October 21, 1940, defendant No. 1's natural father sold the property to Lilawati-bai (defendant No. 2).

(3.) On December 9, 1940, plaintiff Takappa commenced the present suit against thew defendants sacking to recover possession of his share by partition in the landsmentioned in paragraph 1(a) of the plaint and for separate possession of the property mentioned in paragraph 1(b), alleging that the gift in favour of Jinasena Bhattaraka was invalid and that the alienation in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 was not binding upon his share. The defendants contended that the gift was valid. There were other defenses to the suit, but they are not material for the purpose of this appeal The learned trial Judge held that the gift in question was invalid and accordingly he made an order declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to a half share in each of the properties described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. Upon this declaration he made consequential orders which it is not necessary to mention in this place. On appeal by defendant No, 2 the learned First Class Subordinate Judge with appellate powers confirmed the trial Court's decree, holding that the gift deed was not valid in law. Defendant No. 2 appeals.