TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1930 (3) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jahagir and they owned other properties too. It is admitted by both the parties to this suit that the suit lands are ancestral properties. The four brothers effected a partition of. the jahagir income amongst themselves long time back and as a consequence each one of them got a two annas share which was separately paid to them. In course of time, Hari separated first in respect of the rest of the property and later on Mahadev separated. The question in this case is whether Narayan and Krishnarao held the property in suit as joint tenants so that on the death of Krishnaro in 1918 the whole property would be governed by the rule of survivorship and vest in Narayan. 3. It is important to note that in the Record of Rights Narayan and Krishna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relied, the point in this case would have been a simple point of fact as remarked by the Privy Council in Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenkatachala (1924) 27 Bom. L. R 733.. But Mr. Rele for the appellant argued that the learned District Judge went wrong in placing reliance upon the decision in Dagadu Govind v. Sahhubai, to the exclusion of various other rulings amongst which he mentioned the Privy Council decision in Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenhatachala and the rulings in Babanna v. Parana (1926)28BOMLR1446 and Bhimabai v. Gurunathgouda AIR1928Bom367 . On a consideration of all these rulings, I find that the rulings are all reconcilable and there is no error of law in the judgment of the District Court. It is clear that, according to Hindu law, a par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in course of time two of the four brothers separated. It is thus clear that this is a case in which on the facts as stated above, the principle in both the sets of rulings will be applicable. It seems that the trial Court bad not paid regard to the principle laid down in the case of Dagadw Govind v. Sakhubai, for it remarks in paragraph 8 that on the partition of the jahagir income the ancestral land remained joint. Having regard to these circumstances, I do not think that the learned District Judge was wrong in remarking that the learned Subordinate Judge of the first Court had taken no notice of the ruling in Dagadv Govind v. Sakhubai. 8. Mr. Rele contended that the revaluation of the entire evidence by the learned District Judge was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ints mentioned above, I say that there may be some reasons why Krishnarao submitted to that course, and Krishnarao being dead the present plaintiff is not expected to give us any useful information on the point. Narayan, Who should have been able to give information on the point, did not care to go into the witness-box or get himself examined by obtaining a commission. Not only Narayan did not care to place before the Court all the facts which must be within his knowledge, but defendant No. 1, who was really the contesting defendant and stood to lose the case if his contentious were not accepted, did not care to secure the necessary information by obtaining it from Narayan by either citing him as a witness or getting an order to examine him....