- (1.)THIS is plaintiffs 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 and 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:
KUSHABA | | Yesu Limbaji died in 1956 died in 1969 (damb) | Sonabai (died in 1969 Deft. 1 pending the suit | - | | | | | Subhadrabal Lochanabai Ramkrishna Mathurabai Vishnu Deft. 3 Deft. 4 died in 1944 Deft. 6 died in 1947 | Rakhamabai Deft. 2 | Suminatabai Pltff.

As shown in the genealogy, Limbaji had 1/2 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 Rakbamabai. 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 staled 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.

(3.)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.