JUDGMENT : This is an appeal by the defendants 1 and 2 to a suit for possession of S. No. 24 of mauza Mhasla Khurd, taluq Chikhli, district Buldana.

(2) The aforesaid field admittedly belonged to one Chhogamal who died in the year 1926. After his death his widow Smt. Ullahasbai came into possession of this Held. She died on 14-12-1938. According to the plaintiff Ullahasabai was in possession of this field right till her death. The plaintiff who claims that his father Kaluram was a brother of Chhogmal alleges in his plaint that the field was the self-acquired property of Chhogmal and that after the death of Ullahsabai he was entitled to succeed to it as the next reversioner. He therefore instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises on 2-8-1947. The plaintiff has further stated in the plaint that he learnt that after the death of Ullahasabai her sister Zumkabai took wrongful possession of the aforesaid field, that later she sold it to her son-in-law Jeoraj, who in his turn sold it to Rekchand Ratanlal Rekchand sold it to two persons Abdul Sattar and Sk. Umar and that these two persons sold it to the defendants 1 to 4 by a sals deed, dated 13-1-1948. He therefore sued them for obtaining possession of the field.

(3) The defendants raised a number of pleas of which mention need be made only of the plea of adverse possession. According to them, Ullahasabai and her successors-in-title have been in adverse pos-session of this field uninterruptedly, continuously and openly for over 12 years and that the plaintiffs suit is barred by time. They also alleged two facts, viz. that Ullahasabai adopted a son by name Pan-nalal with whom she had entered into a family arrangement by virtue of which the field in question was given to her absolutely and that Ullahasabai sold it to Motilal, the husband of Zumkabai. It may however be mentioned that the lower appellate Court has held that no adoption took place, that no family arrangement was entered into between Ullahasabai and Pannalal and that the alleged sale by Ullahasabai to Motilal has not been proved at all.

(4) It may however be pointed out that in his evidence the plaintiff has made the following statements :

"Kalooram and Chhogmal were joint and there was no partition of ancestral property. The property in the village belonged to me and Chhogmal and similarly the property in Desh also similarly belonged to both. I became the owner of the property after the death of Chhogmal and Ullahasabai had only a right of maintenance."

The question is whether in view of these statements made by the plaintiff in his evidence his claim must be dismissed.

(5) It is no doubt true that what the plaintiff has stated in his evidence is at variance with his pleadings. At the same time it must be borne in mind that it is open to the defendants to treat these statements as admissions made by the plaintiff and used them against him. From this it would follow that Ullahasabai got no right to obtain possession of this field or to remain in possession thereof after the death of Chhogmal, and that the only right which she had on the date was to claim maintenance from the plaintiff out of the joint family property belonging to him and Chhogmal.

(6) As pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sham Koer v. Dah Koer, ILR 29 Cal 664, where a widow is only entitled to maintenance out of the estate her possession thereof or of any part thereof would be adverse to the person who is in law entitled to it unless, it could be shown that that possession was the result of an arrangement between him and the widow.

(7) Shri Mandlekar refers to a decision in Chat-tar Singh v. Roshan Singh, ILR (1946) Nag 159: (AIR 1946 Nag 277) and contends that even if the possession of Ullahasabai was adverse to the plaintiff she being a qualified heir the estate obtained by her would not be an absolute estate but a qualified estate. In that case what was held by the learned Judges was that when a woman governed by Hindu Law e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document