LAWS(PVC)-1927-7-187

JAGDEO Vs. VITHOBA

Decided On July 11, 1927
JAGDEO Appellant
V/S
VITHOBA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs who have lost their suit in both the Courts below. They claim certain property as reversioners after the death of one Mt. Savitri, the widow of one Raisingh. They claim to be the descendants of Danaji who is said to be the common ancestor. Defendants denied the relationship and stated that Danaji had only two sons Khanaji and Kanaji whereas the plaintiff's contention was that Mukram, through whom they traced their descent was also one of the sons of Danaji.

(2.) THE Court of first instance held that plaintiffs were not the reversioners and had no right to sue, and on that ground dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the First Additional District Judge, Akola, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THE lower appellate Court rightly remarks that the main strength of the plaintiffs' case lies in the genealogical tree (Ex. P-5) produced by Pundlik (P.W. 2). The said witness has deposed that the pedigree was prepared by his grandfather Bhagwan, as he learnt from his father. Plaintiffs have examined witnesses P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 to-prove the several links in the pedigree, even the defendants' witnesses D.W. 2, D.W. 3 and D.W. 5 have proved the family tree in certain degrees. Thus in the words of the Additional District Judge himself, the evidence on the record proves the tree for about four generations but no further. He, ultimately, concluded that the evidence failed to establish the immediate relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Raisingh. The reasoning on which this conclusion is based is stated in these words in the judgment: