JUDGEMENT :- This is plaintiff's appeal dismissing her suit for possession of the suit property. The plaintiff's claim in the suit pertaining to the lands in question was based on the following facts:

2. The property in dispute consists of S. No. 219 an S. Nos. 420 to 423 in village Nandur-Ghat, Taluka Kaij, District Bhir. For the purpose of understanding the rights of the parties, it would be useful setting out the admitted genealogy which is as follows :-

3. As shown in the genealogy, Limbaji had ½ share in the property after the death of Kushaba. Limbaji died in the year 1943 leaving behind his widow Sonabai (defendant No. 1 in the present suit) and three daughters. Subhadrabai, Lochanabai and Mathurabai (defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 6 respectively) and two sons Ramkrishna and Vishnu. There is a finding recorded by the lower Court, and there is no dispute about the correctness of the same before me now, that Ramkrishna died in the year 1944 and Vishnu died issueless in the year 1947. Ramkrishna died leaving behind Rakhamabai (defendant No. 2 in the suit). The present plaintiff is the daughter of Ramkrishna and Rakhamabai. The contention of the plaintiff is that Yesu brother of Limbaji, died in the year 1956 and at about that time dispute started between Sonabai on the one hand and Rakhamabai on the other. The exact nature of the dispute is not on the record; but it is admitted before me that Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act was made applicable to the Hyderabad State and consequently to the suit lands in the year 1954. The legal position flowing from these facts is also not in dispute.

Mrs.Kanade appearing for the appellant-plaintiff has frankly stated that as per the law that prevailed in the State of Hyderabad at that time, the property that had come to the share of Ramkrishna as well as Vishnu devolved exclusively upon Sonabai as their mother. The fact, however, remains that it created some kind of dispute between Sonabai on the one hand and Rakhamabai on the other sometime in the year 1956, as a result of which Civil Suit No. 94/1 of 1958 was filed by Sonabai against Rakhamabai in the Court of the Civil Judge, J.D. Kaij.

4. In that suit not only Rakhamabai but even the present defendant No. 5 who is the main contesting defendant in the present litigation was impleaded. Rakhamabai was defendant No. 1 in the said suit and present defendant No. 5, Kisan was defendant No. 2 in that suit. There were two more defendants Dhondiba and Shamrao, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 respectively in that suit. But the dispute was essentially between Sonabai on the one hand and Rakhamabai on the other, but it may be that the remaining defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in that suit were claiming some kind of right through Rakhamabai.

5. On 18-2-1959 an application was filed by Sonabai withdrawing her suit against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in that suit. This means that the contentions against present defendant No. 5 in that suit were withdrawn.

6. It further appears that thereafter the present plaintiff Sumantabai and present defendants Nos. 3 and 4 Subhadrabai and Lochnabai were impleaded by Sonabai in that suit as plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4. Rakhamabai continued to be shown as defendant or rather as the sole defendant, and immediately thereafter on 8-8-1959 a compromise decree was obtained by the plaintiffs from the Court.

7. The compromise decree is at Ex.10 in the present suit. It is the contention of the present plaintiff that as per the compromise contained in the compromise decree ½ share was given to the present plaintiff; whereas the remaining ½ share was given to present defendants Nos. 3 and 4. It is the plaintiff's case that she executed the compromise decree and upon the execution she recovered possession of ½ share in S. No. 219 and 2 annas share in S. Nos. 420 to 423. It is her case that a panchnama to that effect was made. It is her further contention that thereafter present defendant No. 5, who was defendant No. 2 in the earlier suit, started dispossessin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document