Judgement

Appeal (No. 91 of 1929) from two decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (March 20, 1924) varying a decree of the District Judge of Nagpur (December 14, 1920).

In 1917 the appellants, father and son, brought the present suit for possession of properties specified in schedules to the plaint. They alleged that all the properties were joint family properties on June 21, 1916, and that on the death on that date of one Narayan Rao, they were entitled by survivorship.

The trial judge held that the only property in suit which was joint family property consisted of four villages and a half share in a shop. He held that there had been adverse possession for more than twelve years of all the property except the shop. But he held that as the plaintiffs had been in enjoyment of the rent of the shop their claim in respect of the four villages was not barred, having regard to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Sch. I., art. 127. [He referred to Kumarappa Chettiar v. Saminatha Chettiar, (( 1918) I. L. R. 42 M. 431.)] He accordingly decreed the plaintiffs their shares in the villages and shop, and subject thereto dismissed the suit.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. The plaintiffs appeal was dismissed, and the defendants appeal was allowed as to the four villages. It was held that the four villages were not joint property, and that the suit as to them also was barred by adverse possession under art. 144.

1930. Oct. 21, 23, 24 ; Nov. 17, 18, 20. Dube for the appellants.

Upjohn K.C. and Parikh for the second respondent.

The arguments were almost entirely upon the question whether the evidence showed that the property was joint family property or not. The argument for the appellants with regard to limitation of the suit so far as it related to the four villages appears from the present judgment; it was contended for the respondents that it had been rightly held on appeal that the claim thereto was barred by art. 144.

1930. Dec. 19. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR JOHN WALLIS. The parties to this suit belong to a family of Mahratta Brahmins from Berar, who ever since the year 1839 have been carrying on business as money lenders or bankers at Pardi, three or four miles from Nagpur in the Central Provinces.

The property in suit, which is valued at two crores of rupees (considerably more than one and a-half millions sterling), was acquired in the business carried on by the senior branch of the family at Pardi and in recent years at Nagpur. In 1916, Narayan Rao II. (so described to distinguish him from the common ancestor of the same name), who was then the sole survivor of the senior branch, died, leaving an infant daughter, but no male issue. Thereupon Govind Rao, the first plaintiff, who with his son, the second plaintiff, now represents the junior branch of the family, claimed to have become entitled by survivorship to the whole of the suit property as the joint family property of the undivided family, and in 1917 filed the present suit in the District Court of Nagpur, impleading as first defendant Narayan Rao II.s daughter and as second defendant a boy who is alleged to have been adopted by his widow. This adoption was disputed by the plaintiffs, and was made the subject of an issue which it was found unnecessary to decide.

The relationship of the parties and their descent from the common ancestor are shown in the following genealogical table—

Narayan Rao 1.

|

| | | |

Gopal Panth Tanbaji = Ramchandra Sonbaji = Sitabai

(died 1885) Laxmibai. alias Babaji . (died 1880) = died

1887)

| = Gangabai. |

Ganapatrao (Tanbaji and Ramchandra Govind Rao

(died 1913) predeceased Gopalpanth and (adopted; Appellant

Sonbaji). No. 1).

| = |

Narayan Rao Chandrabhagabai Sadasheo alias

II= (adopted (died Feb. 8, 1916) Baburao.(Appellant

in 1874; died No. 2)

June 21,

1916)

|

| |

Anna alias Rajabai

Madhorao (Respondent No.

(alleged 1)

adopted son;

Respondent

No. 2)

The defend