DHONDI DNYANOO SINDE Vs. RAMA BALA SINDE
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
DHONDI DNYANOO SINDE
RAMA BALA SINDE
Click here to view full judgement.
Sen, J. -
(1.) THIS is an appeal against the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara dismissing the plaintiff's suit to recover possession of the property mentioned in the plaint with future mesne profits and other consequential reliefs. The relation between the parties will be apparent from the undermentioned genealogy : Rowlaji|---------------------------| |Santoo Ranoo | | Hari Gopala| | | | | || | Dnyanoo m. Jana Balu (daughters) | Defendant No. 4 || (Died 8th July 1907) || | --------------------------------|| | | |Balu Bayabai Dnyanoo m. Balai (daughters) || Defendant No. 3 || | | --------------------|| | | Nivritti Banu Ramu Ganpati (Died 7th May 1909)Defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 2
(2.) THE following are the relevant dates in the order of events: Dnyanoo died' on July 8, 1907. Nivritti, who is alleged to be the son of Balu, died on May 7, 1909. THE gift-deed passed by Jana in favour of Dnyanoo son of Hari is dated May 15, 1913, and the deed of adoption adopting the plaintiff is dated September 15, 1919. On July 4, 1921, the plaintiff sold half his share in the plaint property (except items Nos. 10, 11 as specified in the plaint) to plaintiff No. 2.
The plaintiff's case was that he had been adopted by Jana, defendant No. 4, wife of Dnyanoo, and that therefore the alienations made by Jana were invalid and that accordingly he and his vendee, plaintiff No. 2, were entitled to the property in suit.
One of the contentions of the defendants was that Jana was not the widow of the last male holder, that Dnyanoo's nephew (Balu's son) Nivritti, who was a joint coparcener with Dnyanoo, had survived Dnyanoo and that therefore Jana could not legally make a valid adoption.
(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that Nivritti was proved to have been the son of Balu and to have died after Dnyanoo. He also held that the factum of the adoption was proved. But he found that plaintiff No. 1's adoption was clearly invalid, on the ground that Nivritti had survived Dnyanoo.
Mr. Koyajee, for the appellant, began his arguments by a reference to certain cases that have been decided by the Privy Council subsequent to the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. In particular, he referred to Bhimabai v. Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda (1932) L.R. 60 I. A. 25 : S.C. 35 Bom. L.R. 200, Amarendra Mansingh v, Sanatan Singh (1933) L.R. 60 I. A. 242 : s.c. 35 Bom. L.R. 859, and Vijayasingji Chhatrasingji v. Shivasangji Bhimasangji (1935) L.R. 62 I. A. 161 : s.c. 37 Bom. L.R. 562.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.