JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:— These appeals are directed against the decision of the Gujarat High Court in an appeal arising out of a suit for partition instituted by the respondent No. 1, Vadilal Bapalal Modi (since deceased).

2. The father of the plaintiff Vadilal was Bapalal who had 5 sons the plaintiff. Ramanlal, Gulabchand, Kantilal and Jayantilal, and a daughter Champaben. Gulabchand was impleaded as the first defendant in the suit and on his death his heirs and legal representatives have been substituted. Kantilal and Champaben are defendants 2 and 3 respectively. Ramanlal predeceased Bapalal and his wife and son are defendants 4 and 5. Jayantilal also died earlier and his wife Smt. Chandrakantaben, defendant No. 6 is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 418 of 1973. Their children are defendants 7 to 12. Civil Appeal No. 520 of 1973 has been preferred by the 7th defendant, Narendra.

3. The suit by Vadilal was instituted in 1960, claiming share in the considerably large properties detailed in the Schedule to the plaint, but the present appeals are not related to any other item excepting the property described as a chawl admeasuring 7 acres and 2 gunthas of land with 115 rooms and huts, situated in the Naroda locality in Ahmedabad under Lot No. 8 of the plaint which has been referred to by the counsel for the parties before us as the chawal or the Naroda chawl. According to the case of defendants 6 to 12, this property exclusively belongs to defendant No. 6 and is not liable to partition. The other defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff with respect to some other items, but so far the disputed chaw is concerned, they supported the plaintiffs case that it belonged to the joint family and is liable to partition.

4. The land of Lot No.8 was acquired by Bapalal in 1932 for a sum of Rs. 9,450/- and the rooms were constructed thereon in about 1934. It has been held by the High Court and the finding has not been challenged before us, that Bapalal acquired the property and built the chawl with the aid of ancestral joint funds, and the property, therefore, belonged to the family. According to the case of the defendants 6 to 12, Bapalal orally gifted the property to his daughter-in-law Chandrakanta the 6th defendant, in March, 1946 and made a statement before the Revenue authorities on the basis of which her name was mutated, and she was put in possession thereof. Admittedly 114 rooms in the Naroda chawl had been let out to tenants, and one room was retained for the caretaker. According to Chandrakantas case, although she came in peaceful possession, the management which included realisation of rent was in the hands of Gulabchand (defendant No. 1). It appears that in 1952 some dispute arose and Chandrakanta assumed direct charge of the Naroda chawl and has remained in possession thereafter. Thus she has been in exclusive possession of the disputed chawl since 1946, and acquired good title therein by adverse possession before the suit was filed in 1960.

5. The learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, who tried the suit, held that Bapalal and his sons constituted a joint Hindu family and the business carried on by Bapalal was for the benefit of the family and the income from the business was thrown in the common pool and all the properties including the disputed chawl were treated as belonging to the family. Proceeding further it has been found that the case of the defendant No. 6 about the gift, the mutation of her name, and her exclusive possession from 1946 till the date of the suit was correct. She was accordingly held to have acquired a title by adverse possession. The suit, therefore, was dismissed with respect to the disputed chawl. For the purpose of the present appeal it is not essential to mention the findings of the trial court relating to the other items of the suit property. The plaintiff appealeld before the Gujarat High Court. Some of the defendants also filed two separate appeals against the judgment of the trial Court