BAPURAO Vs. NARAYAN KESHAV GHANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants-appellants, Bapurao, Govinda and Anna, have come to this Court on second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Yeotmal, dated 20th November 1925, by which their appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, 2nd class, Kelapur, dated 17th August 1925, putting the plaintiff in possession of the house in suit, was dismissed.

(2.) THERE are only four points raised in the present appeal. The first of these is that the lower Courts have erred in holding that there had been a partition between Sitaram and his brothers. On this point I cannot find the slightest room for interference on second appeal. It is true the evidence is more circumstantial than direct, but in the case of a partition which occurred, as the one in suit is alleged to have occurred many years ago, direct evidence may naturally not be forthcoming. The very detailed and careful consideration of all the evidence made By the Subordinate Judge is on the whole conclusive on this point and there is no room whatever for this Court sitting as one of second appeal to disturb either the finding of the original Court in this connexion or that of the appellate Court.

(3.) THE third point urged on behalf of the defendants-appellants is that the possession of Baliram was also adverse, viz. during the two years or so he lived in the house in suit along with Sitaram. Such a suggestion is totally contrary to the probabilities of human nature and experience. It is perfectly clear that Baliram went, out of affection, to live in Sitaram's house when the latter was ailing and nearing his end, and there is nothing whatever to suggest that during that period his possession could be or was adverse. The findings of fact arrived at by both the lower Courts are undoubtedly sound and they, in effect, dispose of this allegation.