9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of partition deed dated 4th August 1927 and arbitrators' role in the partition. 2. Dispute over joint family status and ownership of endowed property. 3. Claim of adverse possession and limitation period regarding the property dedicated to Sri Thakurji. 4. Relief sought by the plaintiff in terms of possession of endowed property and consequential relief. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a partition suit initiated in 1928, where the plaintiff claimed joint family status and a partition deed dated 4th August 1927. The appellant disputed the joint family status since 1916 and the genuineness of the partition deed. Both Indian Courts upheld the partition deed's validity, finding the family joint in 1927 and directing the appellant to render accounts. The appellant conceded on these points due to concurrent findings. 2. The dispute extended to the ownership of an endowed property dedicated to Sri Thakurji. The plaintiff claimed to be a "mutawalli" of the property, which the appellant contested citing lack of possession. The High Court granted joint possession of the endowed property to the plaintiff, considering it essential for the partition to be effective, despite the absence of a specific prayer for possession in the plaint. 3. A crucial point raised in the appeal concerned adverse possession and limitation period regarding the property dedicated to Sri Thakurji. The appellant argued that the plaintiff's claim as a mutawalli should be time-barred under Articles 124 or 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, based on the revenue records showing the property under Bhairon's supervision. However, the Board found no evidence of adverse possession by Bhairon against the plaintiff, especially considering the nature of the family idol's management and the joint family status until 1927. 4. The appellant's argument on adverse possession was refuted based on the distinction between joint family property and endowed property under the Mitakshara law. The Board emphasized the need for a proper inquiry and evidence to establish adverse possession, highlighting that the mere denial of rights as mutawalli by the defendants did not equate to adverse possession for twelve years. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the plaintiff's rights and directing the appellant to bear the legal costs. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, findings, and reasoning behind the Privy Council's decision in the case.
|
