NARAYAN JIVAJI PATIL IN SUBSTITUTION FOR SHANKAR DYAMANGOUDA PATIL Vs. GHIRUNATH KHANDAPPAGOUDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 17th January 1938, which affirmed a judgment and decree, dated 23 December 1936, of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar.

(2.) The question for determination is one of limitation and their Lordships think is governed by a decision of the Board in a kindred case. The facts can be stated very shortly. There were three brothers, Nilkanth, Khandappa and Jivan, who were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mayuka school of Hindu law. Khandappa separated, but Nilkanth and Jivan continued joint. Nilkanth died in 1916 leaving an adopted son who married Tungava. The adopted son died in 1919, and Tungava adopted Dattatraya, who died on 6th February 1920. Jivan died in 1915, and his widow in 1919 adopted Narayan, who attained his majority in March 1920. The adoption of Narayan, as the law was then understood in Bombay, was invalid, since the adoptive mother had not obtained the consent of the coparceners. On the death of Dattatraya, Gurunath, who was the son of Khandappa, entered into possession of the coparcenary property, which was mostly watan, ignoring the adoption of Narayan. The date on which he took possession was 24 February 1930. Later in the year 1920 Gurunath filed Suit No. 588 of 1920 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar in which he challenged Narayan's adoption. This case was ultimately carried to the Privy Council where on 4th November 1932, it was held, reversing the decisions of the Courts in India, that the adoption of Narayan was valid.

(3.) On 26 November 1932, Narayan filed a suit No. 115 of 1932 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar claiming possession of the coparcenary property from Gurunath. The First Class Subordinate Judge held that Narayan's claim was barred by limitation, and his decision was upheld by the High Court of Bombay. An appeal was lodged in the Privy Council.