CHANDRAMOHAN RAMCHANDRA PATIL AND ORS. versus BAPU KOYAPPA PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 19-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
CHANDRAMOHAN RAMCHANDRA PATIL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BAPU KOY APP A PATIL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 19, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.) 
B 
. , \ 
Hindu Law: 
Suit for partition of Watan/lnam lands-Dismissed by Trial Court- c 
Reversed by First Appellate Court-High Court recognised.the right of plaintiff 
to the extent of //3rd share in the suit land-Held: Appellate Court on 
consideration of rival pedigrees came to the conclusion that pedigree produced 
by plaintiff was genuine and it was upheld by High Court-Hence evidence 
~ 
of pedigree is relevant and thus prove relationship of the plaintiff with the 
ancestorllnamdar-When the predecessor-in-title of the defendant became D 
Watandar, the possession of suit land cannot be held to be adverse to the 
other member of the family after abolition of lnams/Waians and regrant of 
such lands to erstwhile Watandar for the benefit of fami(v---Hence the lands 
became partible-Since High Court formulated substantial questions. of law 
on the main issues of relationship of plaintiff with the main ancestor and his E 
entitlement to partition of suit land, provisions under Section 100 CPC complied 
with-C.P.C., 1908; Section JOO-Evidence Act, 1872; Section 30(5) and 
Section 50. 
A suit for partition of certain Inam lands was filed by the ancestor of 
the respondents and it was dismissed by the Trial Court. The First Appellate F 
Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and in appeal the decision 
was confim1ed by the High Court recognising the right of plaintiff to the ·extent 
of l/3rd s.hare in the suit lands. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that since the plaintiff in 'the 
partition suit had failed to prove his relationship with the main ancestor/ G 
first Watandar of loam lands, trial Court rightly rejected his claim in the 
partition suit; that since predecessors-in-title of the defendants had 
prescribed his adverse possession on the lands as he was recognised as 
Watandar by the order of the then Regency Court, partition suit was 
barred by limitation; and that since the High Court did not frame 
H 
substantial question of law, the case should be remanded for fresh decision. 
203 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The question of relationship and the dispute on the 
correctness of the pedigrees produced by the parties in the case for proof 
of relationship of the parties with the )riginal ancestor i~ essentially a 
question of fact. The trial Court in non-suiting the plaintiff has recorded 
B a finding amongst others that in the pedigree the branch of sons of original 
ancestor to which the plaintiff claims to be belonging, is not shown and 
that was produced in the proceedings in the year 1945. The First Appellate 
Court went thoroughly into the dispute of correctne~s of the rival pedigrees 
filed by the parties and chose to rely on the oldest pedigree which explains 
C relationship of the members of the family of original ancestor. There were 
three pedigrees of different periods before the Court and Court came to 
the conclusion that the pedigree produced by the plaintiff has to be 
accepted as genuine as it gets support from the earliest pedigree of the 
years 1870 and 1874, These evidence have been duly taken note of by the 
High Court and the decision of the appellate Court on that issue has been 
D upheld. Therefore, it is not open to the defendants to raise ground on the 
correctness of the finding of fact on the issue of relationship. The evidence 
of pedigree relied on by the First Appellate Court and the High ·court is. 
relevant and admissible to prove relationship under Section 30(5) and 
Section 50 of the Evidence Act. [207-E-H; 208-A-B] 
E 
1.2. There is a serious flaw in the legal argum'ent claim~g title by 
adverse possession. Tlte suit lands held by erstwhile Watandar or lnamdar 
were impartible under the then existing law. The contest inter se for the 
status of Watandar between members of the family ended by order of 
Regency Court and the only result was t.hat the predecessors-in-title of 
F the defendants was allowed to possess the land as Watandar being the 
eldest member of the family of original Watandar on the rule 
primogeniture. After the abolition ofWatan or loam and when a re-grant 
of the land was made to the Watandar, the properties came back to the 
--..,. 
whole body of joint family of the erstwhile Watandar and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.