( 1 ) WHILE admitting this appeal on 10-12-1996, this court framed the following two substantial questions of law:-" (a) The Lower Appellate Court erred in recording the findings of tenancy in favour of the Defendant No. 1. The lower Appellate court ought to have framed issue of tenancy and referred the same to the Tenancy Court for its decision on the same to decide as to whether it is joint family tenancy or individual tenancy, especially, when the Defendant No. 1 raised an objection regarding the same in his appeal memo and pleadings of the parties are more than clear. This is a substantial question oi law. (b) The Lower Appellate Court has emed in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, especially when the Respondent has failed to produce evidence regarding acquisition of land out of his own earning. On the contrary he has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has no documentary evidence to prove his self earnings or separate income. "

( 2 ) RAMA Shinde, a resident of village Jakatwadi (Shahapur) Taluka and district Satara was married to Smt. Chandrabai and the couple had three sons, namely, Rau (Defendant No. 1), Bhau (the late husband of defendant No. 2) and Bapu (the late husband of Plaintiff No. 1 ). Rama died sometimes in the year 1940 and the children were brought up by Chandrabai. Defendant No. 1 was the eldest son and was about 20 years of age when his father died, whereas the husband of Plaintiff no. 1 i. e. Bapu was hardly about one years old As per the Plaintiff on her marriage with bapu she became a member of the joint Hindu family of Chandrabai and the Defendant No. 2 was married earlier to the second son Bhau, who died within a short period of about two years after the marriage and consequently defendant No. 2 left the village after she came to be appointed as a School Teacher. The defendant No. 1 along with his family and the third son Bapu along with his family i. e. wife and three daughters continued to be the members of the joint Hindu family with chandrabai as the Karta of the family. However, Bapu, the husband of Plaintiff No. 1 died sometimes in 1977 and the Plaintiff along with her three daughters was shifted to the shed marked as Village Panchayat House No. 104, but the cultivation of agricultural lands continued to be joint occupation of the family and she was being given her due share by chandrabai till her demise in 1980. On the demise of Chandrabai the Defendant No. 1 being the eldest son took over the affairs of the family and he continued to give the plaintiffs share from the agricultural income till July, 1983. However, the Defendant No. 1 changed this stand and stopped giving the share to the Plaintiff No. 1 from the agricultural income and, therefore, she issued a notice on 01-09-1986 seeking her share in the family property. As per the Plaintiff No. 1 the defendant No. 1 orally informed her that she had no right in the suit property and she was free to take whatever steps she desired. The plaintiff No. 1, therefore, filed Regular Civil suit No. 505 of 1986 along with two of her daughters i. e. Plaintiff Nos. 1a and 1b and prayed for partition of the joint Hindu family property described in para 1 of the plaint, namely;" (a) Agricultural land admeasuring 5 hectares and 4 ares located in Gat No. 88/0 and agricultural land admeasuring 52 ares located in Gat No. 87/5 of village Jakatwadi. (b) House bearing Village Panchayat no. 104a with 12 Khans and built in stone and mud which was valued at Rs. 1,000/-, and (c) House bearing Village Panchayat no. 104 with tin roof and built in stone and mud located in the open space of the entire property registered as House No. 104a and valued at rs. 500/ -. "

( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 3 is the daughter of Plaintiff No. 1 and she filed her Written statement at Exh. 19 supporting the claim of partition. So also Defendant No. 2 filed her written Statement at Exh. 15 and claimed her 1/3rd share in the suit properties along with the Plaintiffs. However, Defen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document