JUDGMENT - PENDSE M.L., J.:---These two appeals raise an interesting question of Hindu Law relating to succession of property inherited by a woman prior to Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is necessary to set out the relevant facts to appreciate the question involved in these two appeals.

The land bearing Survey No. 114 of Village Chinke in Sangola Taluka of Solapur District admeasures 28 acres and 33 gunthas. The land originally belonged to one Sukhdeo who was a common ancestor. The genealogy of Sukhdeo is as under :-

Sukhdeo

|

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Balu Yesu Sheshappa

| |

----------------------- --------------------------

| | | |

Shahaji Ijappa Pandu Daji

| | (Krishnabai)

Aba Chandru |

| | ---------------------------

Gunabai Dagadu (Plaintiff) Bajrang Kasabai

Sukhdeo had three sons Balu, Yesu and Sheshpapa. Yesu died at young age and his branch was extinct. Balu had two sons, Shahaji and Ijappa. Ijappa's son is Chandru and Chandru's son is plaintiff. Sheshappa had two sons, Pandu and Daji and Daji had two children, Bajrang and Kasabai. Krishnabai, a widow of Daji died in the year 1940. Dagadu, original plaintiff, claims that a partition was effected between Ijappa, Shahaji and Sheshappa prior to year 1912 and land allotted to the share of Sheshappa bears Survey No. 114/1 while the land allotted to the branch of Balu bearing Survey No. 114/2. In the year 1928, falni measurements were carried out and land bearing Survey No. 114/2 admeasuring 18 acres and 39 gunthas and land bearing Survey No. 114/1 admeasuring 8 acres and 33 gunthas were shown in the names of Aba and Dagadu and Kasabai respectively. The mutation entries were then effected accordingly and the name of Kasabai was entered in the revenue record as owner of the land in dispute.

2. After the death of Sheshappa in the year 1912, his son Daji died in the year 1914 leaving behind his widow Krishnabai, son Bajrang and daughter Kasabai. The property which had fallen to the share of Sheshappa was inherited by Daji and after his death by Bajrang. After the death of Bajrang, the property was held by his mother Krishnabai and after the death of Krishnabai, by Bajrang's sister Kasabai. On December 18, 1942 Kasabai sold 5 acres and 9 gunthas of land to Lochanabai by registered sale-deed. Lochanabai is mother of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and to this document, the plaintiff is the attesting witness. Mutation entry was effected in the year 1942. Entry in the property card was made in the name of Lochanabai after notice of change was served on plaintiff. On May 6, 1969 defendant No. 1 sold 1/6th share of the land in dispute to defendant No. 3 while on May 29, 1969 defendant No. 2 sold ¼th share to one Pitambare. These two sale-deeds were challenged by plaintiff by filing two suits on April 10, 1970. The plaintiff claimed that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had no right, title and interest to the suit property. The plaintiff asserted that after the death of Bajrang the property should have reverted back to Dagadu and could not have been inherited by Krishnabai or Kasabai. The plaintiff did not refer to the fact to partition prior to year 1914 in the plaint but unequivocally admitted the same in the witness box. Both the suits were resisted and it was claimed that the property became separate property of Bajrang on the death of Daji, Bajrang being sole surviving co-parcener and after the death of Bajrang, it was inherited by Krishnabai. On the death of Krishnabai in the year 1939, the property was inherited by Kasabai being sister of Bajrang and consequently, the sale-deeds effected by Kasabai in the year 1942 were perfectly legal and valid. The defendants also claimed that in the alternative, the plaintiff has lost the title to the suit property because the property was held adversely by Kasabai from year 1939 onwards. The trial Judge by judgment dated December 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document