JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA, J.:---The appellants here are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4. They shall be hereinafter referred to as defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. They challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kolhapur, on 31st July, 1975 in Special Civil Suit No. 174 of 1973, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of their shares in the suit properties along with past and future mesne profits.

2. This appeal is mainly directed against the first three respondents who were the original plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 3").

3. Defendant No. 1 Ningu Vithu Bamane, is the husband of plaintiff No. 3 Gangubai Ningu Bamane. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are their sons.

4. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 4, Jana Ningu Bamane, is the kept mistress of defendant No. 1 Defendant Nos 2 and 3 are their sons.

5. Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 who were defendant Nos. 5 to 11 were made formal parties as they are co-sharers in the immoveable properties involved in the suit. The defendants did not contest the suit and were proceeded against ex parte. They are not even participants in this appeal

6. The suit properties are admittedly properly described in the plaint and no dispute is raised before me about the description of this ancestral moveable and immoveable properties in the hands of defendant No. 1.

7. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 made a registered partition deed in the year 1960 under which he proceeded to partition the suit properties and give certain shares to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 but the said partition deed was illegal and void ab initio and, therefore, was not binding on them. It is their contention that defendant No. 4 was the kept mistress of defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were the sons born to her as a result of her illicit relations with defendant No. 1. Therefore, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have absolutely no right, title or interest in the suit properties, further contended the plaintiffs. They can contended that all the suit properties, moveable and immoveable, are the ancestral properties in the hands of defendant No. 1 and, therefore, these properties are liable for partition and each one of them has 1/4th share along with defendant No. 1. They, therefore, claimed partition and separate possession of their 3/4th joint share in all the suit properties. They demanded partition because there used to be quarrels in the family at the instance of defendant No. 4 and defendant No. 1 ill-treated them and as such it was not possible for them to stay in the house. The plaintiffs also averred that defendant No. 1 drove them out of the house, thus keeping them away from the enjoyment of the suit properties. While claiming partition they also claimed past and future mesne profits from defendant No. 1. Plaintiff No. 3, in the alternative, claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month as also maintenance for the last three years and prayed that a charge be created on the properties coming to the share of defendant No. 1 for her maintenance.

8. As stated above, the suit was resisted by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 only. Their written statement is at Exh. 11. In their defence, they challenged pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain and try the suit. They contended that the partition effected in the year 1960 was legal and valid and binding on the plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit for fresh partition was not maintainable. According to them, the plaintiffs were not ill-treated and were not driven out of the house and they (plaintiffs) were residing in the same house along with all the defendants till recent past but plaintiff No. 1 got employment at Kolhapur and, therefore, plaintiff No. 3 along with plaintiff No. 2 went to Kolhapur to look after plaintiff No. 1. Thus, according to these defendants, the plaintiffs had voluntarily left the house and that too in the recent past and as such are not en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document