GULABRAO Vs. MT. MANJOOLABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The appellant before me seeks permission to amend his pleadings. His grounds are twofold. In the first place, it is urged that a plea of limitation can be urged at any stage of the Rs. Secondly, it is prayed that the statement regarding the time of alleged adoption into another family was too general and without specification of the exact date. The result was that it went unnoticed by all concerned.

(2.) IN order to appreciate these contention, a general outline of the facts leading up to the filing of the above applications may usefully be given. The appellant's relation with the respondent would appear from the following table: Bandaji Sindhe (died 1911) Mt. Tani Bai (died) | __________________________________________ | | Tatya Rao (died 2-2-18) Gulab Rao (Defendant) Mt. Manjoola Bai (Plaintiff)

(3.) THE defence made a general admission of the allegations contained in paras, 1 to 8 of the plaint which include the statement about the time of his adoption. Allegations regarding the defendant being divested of his 8-annas share of Kirna and of its possession were denied. It was pleaded that both Tatya Rao and after him the plaintiff acquiesced in defendant's possession of his 8-annas share. In mutation proceedings the plaintiff admitted the defendant's share. The legal plea of estoppel by acquiescence was taken against the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the adoption did not and could not result in the loss of defendant's defined share in his natural family and his possession thereof as its recorded proprietor was under a family arrangement which was consistently acted upon for a series of years. Defendant's possession was stated to be in his own right. The litigation was characterized as ill advised.