1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1563 OF 2004 WITH CROSS OBJECTIONS NO. 409 OF 2005 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 416 OF 2005 WITH CROSS OBJECTION NO. 419 OF 2005 Mukund Ramchandra Lathi, Age 44 years, .. APPELLANT Occupation Business, Resident of 7, Polen Peth, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon VERSUS 1. Purushottam Kashinath Lathi, Age 65 ..RESPONDENTS years, Occupation Business, Resident of C/o Lathi & Company, 7, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. Since deceased through L.Rs. 1-A Chandrakala W/o Purushottam Lathi, Age 46 years, Occupation Business, 1-B Shrikant Purushottam Lathi, Age 30 years, Occupation Business, 1-C Sunil Purushottam Lathi, Age 39 years, Occupation Business, Nos.1-A to 1-C all resident of “ Puruchandra “ 16, Adarsha Nagar, Behind Rustanji School, Jalgaon. 2 1-D Sushama W/o Vijay Patil, Age 42 years, Occupation Household, Resident of C/o. Vijayrao Venkatrao Patil, 442, Vrundayan Co-operative Housing Society, Thane (West), Mumbai-400 001. 1-E Sandhya W/o Prakash Mantri, Age 41 years,Occupation Household, Resident of Pranit Bunglow, Sharade Nagar, Extention Bhandra Road, Amravati 444 601. 2. Shrikrushna Kashinath Lathi, Age 62 years, Occupation Business. 3. Dr. Madhukar Lathi, Age 62 years, Occupation. Doctor, 4. Ayodhyabai W/o Kashinath Lathi, Age 83 years, Occupation Business, Resident of 40/1, Janki Nagar, Behind Lunked Tower, Opposite Lane of Radhakrushan Mangal Karyalaya, Jalgaon, Since deceased, through L.Rs. 4-A. Purushottam Kashinath Lathi, Age 68 years, Occupation Business, C/o Lathi & Company, 7, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. 4-B. Shrikrushana Kashinath Lathi, Age 65 years, Occu. Business, R/o 7, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. 4-C Madhukar Kashinath Lathi, Age 62 years, Occu.Doctor, R/o 40/1, Janki Nagar, Jalgaon. 4-D Sau.Pushpabai W/o Jagnath Nyati, Age 59 years,Occu. Household, R/o 7, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. 3 4-E Jayant Madhukar Lathi, Age 32 years, Occu.Doctor. 4-F Praviz Madhukar Lathi, Age 30 years, Occu.Business, Nos.4E & 4F R/40/1, Janki Nagar, Behind Lunkad Tower, Jalgaon. 5. Sow.Pushpabai W/o Jagannath Nyati, Age 56 years, Occu.Household, Nos.2 to 5 all resident of Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 6. Shrikant Purushottam Lathi,Age.40 years,Business, R/o C/o Lathi & Company, 7, Polen Peth, Jalgaon. 7. Shri.Ramchandra Rupchand Lathi, Age 80 years, Occu.Business, R/o 7, Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon since deceased through L.Rs. 7-A Smt.Jamunabai W/o Ramchandra Lathi, Age. 61 years, Occu.Household, R/o 7 Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 7-B Shri.Shashikant Ramchandra Lathi, Age.61 years,Occu.Business,R/o Pashchim Mangalwar Peth, Hutatma Sarda Market, Solapur-2. 7-C Shri.Barkum Kedarnath Ramchandra Lathi, Age. 49 years, Occu.Business, R/o S.I.G.24, Harshavardhan Nagar, Bhopal M.P. 7-D Shri. Mukund Ramchandra Lathi, Age.48 years, Occu.Business, R/o 7, Polan Peth, Lathiwada, Jalgaon. 7-E Shri.Nandkishor Ramchandra Lathi, Age.46 years, Occu.Business. 4 7-EE Shri.Shivprasad Satyanarayan Lathi, Age.17 years, Occu.Education, minor through Mother guardian Smt.Mangalabai W/o Satyanarayan Lathi R/o 7, Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 7-U Shri.Ashok Ramchandra Lathi, Age. 42 years, Occu.Service, R/o Laxmichayya Apartment, Near Perina ice-cream Panchavati, Nashik. 7-UU Vijay Ramchandra Lathi, Age 31 years, Occu. Business, R/o 7, Polan eth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 7-AA Sau. Laxmibai W/o Jankidas Lathi, Age.40 years, Occu. Household, R/o C-13, Sunita Co-operative Housing Society Behind Chitramandir, Vavare Lane, Nashik. 8. Sau. Jamunabai W/o Ramchandra Lathi, Age 60 years, Occu.Household, R/o Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 9. Shri.Shashikant Ramchandra Lathi, Age.57 years, Occu.Business, R/o 713, Pashchim Mangalwar Peth, Hutatma Sarda Market, Solapur-2, since decease through his L.Rs. 9-A Smt.Kamalbai W/o Shashikant Lathi, 4-B Shrikrushana Kashinath Lathi, Age. 65 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Polan Peth, Jalgaon. 4-C Madhukar Kashinath Lathi, Age 62 years, Occupation Doctor, Resident of 40/1 Janki Nagar, Jalgaon. 5 4-D Pushpabai W/o Jaganath Nyati, Age 59 years, Occupation Household, Resident of 7, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. 4-E Jayant Madhukar Lathi, Age 32 years, Occupation Doctor, 4-F Praviz Madhukar Lathi, Age 30 years, Occupation Business. Nos. 4E & 4F R/o. 40/1, Janki Nagar, Behind Lunkad Tower, Jalgaon. 5. Pushpabai W/o Jagannath Nyati, Age 56 years, Occupation Household, Nos.2 to 5 all resident of Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 6. Shrikant Purushottam Lathi, Age 40 years, Occupation Business, Resident of C/o Lathi & Company, 7 Polan Peth, Jalgaon. 7. Ramchandra Rupchand Lathi, Age 80 years, Occupation Business, Resident of 7, Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon, since deceased through L.Rs. 7-A Jamunabai W/o Ramchandra Lathi, Age 61 years, Occupaton Household, Resident of 7, Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 7-B Shashikant Ramchandra Lathi, Age 61 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Pashchim Mangalwar Peth, Hutatma Sarda Market, Solapur-2. 7-C Barkum Kedarnath Ramchandra Lathi, Age 49 years, Occupation Business, Resident of S.I.G. 24, Harshavardhan Nagar, Bhopal M.P. 6 7-D Mukund Ramchandra Lathi, Age 48 years, Occupation Business, Resident of 7, Polan Peth, Lathiwada, Jalgaon. 7-E Nandkishor Ramchandra Lathi, Age 46 years, Occupation Business. 7-EE Shivprasad Satyanarayan Lathi, Age 17 years, Occupation Education, minor through Mother guardian Mangalbai W/o Satyanarayan Lathi, Resident of 7, Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 7-U Ashok Ramchandra Lathi, Age 42 years, Occupation Service, Resident of Laxmichayya Apartment, Near Perina ice-cream Panchavati, Nashik. 7-UU Vijay Ramchandra Lathi, Age 31 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Polan Peth, Lathi Wada,Jalgaon. 7-AA Laxmibai W/o Jankidas Lathi, Age 40 years, Occupation Household, Resident of C-13, Sunita Co- Operative Housing Society Behind Chitramandir, Vavare Lane, Nashik. 8. Jamunabai W/o Ramchandra Lathi, Age 60 years, Occupation Household, Resident of 7, Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 9. Shashikant Ramchandra Lathi, Age 57 years,Occupation Business, Resident of 713, Pashchim Mangalwar Peth, Hutatma Sarda Market, Solapur-2, since deceased through his L.Rs. 9-A Kamalbai W/o Shashikant Lathi, Age 57 years, Occupation Household, 7 Resident of Hutatma Sarda Market, Falttan Gali, Solapur- 413 002. 9-B Aashish Shashikant Lathi, Age.35 years, Occupation Business, Resident of Hutatma Sarda Market, Faltan Gali, Solapur 413002. 9-C Dr. Sapna W/o Atul Karva, Age 30 years, Occupation Doctor, Resident of Vardhaman Co-Operative Housing Society, Shrirampur, District Nagar. 9-D Monika W/o Rajesh Somani, Age 28 years, Occupation Household, Resident of 2-2-1105/79, Tilak Nagar, “Aasha” New Nulla Kuta, Hyderabad-44. 10. Barkuram @ Kedarnath Ramchandra Lathi, Age 45 years, Occupation Business, Resident of L.I.G. 25, Harshaverdhan Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.) 11. Nandkishor Ramchandra Lathi, Age 42 years, Occupation Business, Resident of 7, Polan Peth, Lathi wada, Jalgaon. 12. Shivprasad Satyanarayan Lathi, Age 13 years, Occupation Education, Resident of 7, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. Defendant No.12 being minor through mother guardian Mangalabai W/o Satyanarayan Lathi, Age 35 years, Occupation Household, resident of 7, Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 13. Ashok Ramchandra Lathi, Age 38 years, Occupation Service, Indrakund, Panchavati, Nashik. 8 14. Vijay Ramchandra Lathi, Age 27 years, Occupation Business, Resident of 7, Polan Peth, Lathiwada, Jalgaon. 15. Laxmibai W/o Jankidas Lathi, Age 36 years, Occupation Household, Resident of C-13 Suniti Co-op. Housing Society, Behind Chintramandir, Vavare Lane,Nashik. 16. Dwarkabai W/o Bankatlal Lathi, Age 66 years, Occupation Household, 17. Arvind Bankatlal Lathi, Age 51 years, Occupation Business. 18. Anil Bankatlal Lathi, Age 45 years, Occupation. Business. 19. Deelip Bankatlal Lathi, Age 36 years, Occupation Business. 20. Avinash Bankatlal Lathi, Age 36 years, Occupation Business. Defendant Nos. 16 to 20 all resident of 7, Polan Peth, Lathi Wada, Jalgaon. 21. Umabai W/o Ramnarayan Maheshwari, (Kabra), Age 53 years, Occupation Workshop, Resident of B-6 Runwal Park, Behind Akbar Ali, Chembur (Mumbai). 22. Savitribai W/o Ramkumar Agrawal, Age 45 years, Occupation Household, Resident of 41, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. 23. Ishwardas Baluram Katariaya (Balani), Age Major, Occupation Business, Resident of 41, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. 9 24. Prabhudas Baluram Katariya, Age Major, Occupation Business, Resident of 41, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. 25. Ramchandra Baluram Katariya (Balani), Age Major, Occupation Business, Resident of 41, Polan Peth, Jalgaon. Mr. P.R. Patil and Mr. P.A. Pisal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate for respondents No. 1A, 1C to 1E and 6 Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No. 2 and 4B Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, Advocate for respondent No. 3 and 4C Mr. R.S. Bihani and Mr. P.S. Pawar, Advocates for respondent No. 4E Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for respondent No. 4F Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for LRs of respondents No. 7A, 7C, 7E to 8, 9 to 15 Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate holding for Mr. Sanjay Mundhe, Advocate for respondents No. 16 to 20 Mr. V.J. Dixit, Advocate for appellant in Cross Objection No. 409 of 2005 Mr. R.S. Bihani, Advocate for appellant in Cross Objection No. 416 of 2005 Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate for appellant in Cross Objection No. 419 of 2005 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, DATED : 16th September, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in Special Civil Suit No. 61 of 1996. The appellant was the plaintiff and had filed the suit seeking partition and possession of his joint family property, which 10 according to him, belonged to his joint Hindu family. The appellant also claimed accounts of past income of the suit property and for his share in it. (For the sake of convenience, it is better if the parties to the appeal can be referred to by their designation in the Court below). 2. The plaintiff (the appellant) is one of the grand sons of one Raosaheb Roopchand Motiram Lathi, who died on 24th January, 1954. Raosaheb’s wife Narbadabai had predeceased him in 1951. Raosaheb left behind three sons and one daughter, whose names were Kashinath, Ramchandra, Bankatlal and Ayodhyabai. Kashinath died in September, 1984, Bankatlal died in March, 1964 and Ayodhyabai died in 1992. Ramchandra, the third son of Raosaheb was alive when the suit was filed and was party to the suit as the defendant No.7. The plaintiff is son of Ramchandra. On the other hand, the defendants No. 1 to 3 are sons of Kashinath, the defendant No.4 is widow of Kashinath and the defendant No.5 is his daughter. The defendant No. 6 is the grand son of Kashinath. These are the contesting defendants. The defendants No. 17 to 21 are children of deceased Bankatlal and defendant No. 16 is widow of Bankatlal. They too are supporting the plaintiff in this case. The defendants No. 22 to 25 are purchasers of some of the suit properties. The genealogy emerging from the pleading can be set out as under : 11 GENEALOGY Motiramji (died in 1900) _______________________________________________________ Manikchandji (Died 31/5/95) Rupchandji (Raosaheb) (28/12/1979) to 24/1/1954) _______________________________________________ Kashinath = Ayodhyabai Ramchandra = Jamunabai Bankatlal died on (Deceased-D4) (15/4/2000) (D-7 A) (Deceased) 21/9/84 (3/9/99) (D-7) D-8 (21/3/1964) (Deceased) _______________________________ Dwarkabai (Widow) (D-16) ________________________ Purushottam Shrikrushna Madhukar Pushpa (Deceased (D-2) & (D-3) (D-4D) Uma Arvind Anil Dilip Avinash deft.1) (D4B) (D-4C) (D-21) (D-17) (D-18) (D-19)(D-20) (D-4A) _____________________________ Chandra- Shrikant Sunil Sushma Sandhya kala (D-1B) (D-1C) (D-1D) (D-1E) (D-1A) (D-6) ____________________________________________________________ Shashi- Barkuram Mukund Nand- Satish Shivpra- Ashok Vijay- Laxmi kant (D-7C (D-7D kishor (Decea- sad (D-7U) kumar (D-7AA- (D-9) (D-10) plff) (D-7E sed) (D-12) D-13 (D7UU) D-15) (9-A,9B, D-11) (D7-E) (D-14) 9C,9D) 12 (D22 to D25 are Purchasers) The details of the suit properties are not required to be given in this Judgment, because they are described properly in the plaint as well as in the impugned Judgment. The facts leading to the litigation are as under : 3. Raosaheb Roopchand Motiram Lathi was a remarkable person of Jalgaon during 1930 to 1950. He flourished with his own exertion in social, cultural, educational and commercial fields of the area. During his life time, he created lot of wealth, which are the suit properties. He even established a Co-operative Bank and an Education Society. During his life time, the erstwhile British Government recognized his work and bestowed Title ‘Raosaheb’ to him. Raosaheb had several businesses and at least three cloth shops at Jalgaon and Bhusaval. His children Kashinath, Ramchandra and Bankatlal were born in 1908, 1917 and 1922. In 1942, two of his sons were helping him in his cloth and other businesses. At that time, elder two of his sons were married having children, except the youngest Bankatlal, who was about 20 years old. In 1942, Raosaheb handed over cash of Rs.15,000/- to each of his sons and asked them to leave him and his businesses. He made it clear to them that the amount which he had given to them was not refundable and with that amount they should start their own independent businesses. Thereafter, all the three sons started their own businesses. They then became independent and did not depend on Raosaheb for their livelihood. The eldest son Kashinath was educated and had already become a Lawyer. He had started his legal practice in 1933, but he left his practice in 1942. After 1942 or so, he left Jalgaon for Mumbai, where he started his own business. He also took his wife and 13 children with him to Mumbai. On the other hand, his younger brothers and father stayed at Jalgaon. Ramchandra took education up to 3rd standard, and from 1930 onwards, he helped his father in his business. In 1942, he started his own shop of cloth and started residing separately. He got married in 1935 and again in 1948 and had his children. The third brother Bankatlal took education up to 3rd standard up to 1934. In 1940, he got married. He started his own business. He had his children, but died in 1964. His children after becoming major got married and had been doing their own businesses. 4. It is almost an admitted fact that the suit properties belonged to Raosaheb and they were his self acquired properties. On 24th January, 1954, Raosaheb died due to old age. He had not made any Will. At the time of his death, his elder son Kashinath used to stay at Mumbai and he mostly depended on his younger brothers to look after the property which Raosaheb left for the three sons. The three sons all along assumed that they were the only legal heirs, who would inherit the suit property, the self acquired movable and immovable properties of Raosaheb. On 8th December, 1955, Kashinath (eldest son of Raosaheb) filed Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956 against his two brothers for partition of the movable and immovable properties left behind by Raosaheb. While filing this suit, Kashinath made serious allegations against his brothers that they were trying to utilize the property for their own use and were interested in excluding him from the same. Kashinath even sought account of the income of the property from the date of death of Raosaheb. 5. The brothers of Kashinath defended the suit for quite some 14 time. Various interim applications were taken out in that suit and were hotly contested. Ultimately, when the suit ripened for recording evidence, there occurred a compromise between the brothers, and Ramchandra and Bankatlal agreed to give all the immovable properties of Raosaheb, which wer mentioned in the plaint, to Kashinath. In addition to this, they also agreed to give movable properties at item Nos. 4 to 14, mentioned in schedule-B to the plaint, to Kashinath. It was further agreed between the brothers that Kashinath would be liable to pay all the dues of deceased Raosaheb along with the estate duty. The agreement further indicated that Ramchandra who at that time owned an immovable property, a house, at Jalgaon, would belonge to him exclusively and his brothers had no right in it. At that time, there were at least two money decrees amounting to Rs.85,000/- pending against deceased Raosaheb, and Kashinath agreed to discharge such liability. The suit of 1956 thus came to an end on 26th December, 1957. After this, apparently there remained no dispute between the brothers over Raosaheb’s self acquired properties. During next few years, Kashinath discovered some more properties, which Raosaheb had acquired during his life time and which were not included in the suit of 1956. He appropriated those properties too and all along enjoyed as his exclusive property. 6. On 21st April, 1984, Kashinath executed a Will, and soon thereafter, on 24th September, 1984, he died. Kashinath in his Will bequeathed certain immovable property to his brother Ramchandra, the defendant No.7. When Ramchandra learnt about it, he, on 25th September, 1985, executed a deed of relinquishment in respect of the property which he was to receive as bequeathed by Kashinath in favour of the family members of Kashinath. On 25th August, 1994, the 15 plaintiff himself purchased certain property which Kashinath received in the compromise of Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956 from one of the sons of Kashinath. On 30th March, 1995, a public notice was issued by one Purohit. The plaintiff came across this notice, and thereafter, on 15th February, 1996, he filed the suit for partition. The year of birth of plaintiff is 1952. He had attained majority in October, 1970, and when he was almost 44 years old in 1996, he has filed the suit. In this background, let me now narrate the case of the plaintiff, which he pleaded in the plaint. 7. In the notice dated 30th March, 1995, there occurred mention of the Will executed by Kashinath and some property being bequeathed to Ramchandra, the father of the plaintiff. The plaintiff said that he got curious from such references and took search through the city survey record and found that the house property City Survey No. 1900/A/2 originally belonged to his grand father Raosaheb. In 1958, the City Survey Officer recorded mutation in respect of number of house properties mentioning that Kashinath was owner of such properties. From the city survey record, the plaintiff also learnt that a Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956 was filed. The plaintiff then took search of the record of the said civil suit and found that the said suit was filed by Kashinath against his own father and uncle Bankatlal. The plaintiff then, for the first time, learnt that as per the compromise recorded in that suit, certain immovable properties were given to the share of Kashinath. The plaintiff states that for the first time he asked his father Ramchandra about the said events of 1955, 1956 and 1957. He said, his father then narrated following story to him. Kashinath, Bankatlal and Ramchandra had undivided interest in the property left behind by Raosaheb. Kashinath was the eldest brother and he was educated up to LL.B. and was practicing as 16 an Advocate. Since the death of Raosaheb, Kashinath started quarrels with his brothers Ramchandra and Bankatlal. He even started collecting rent from the tenants, who occupied certain properties belonging to Raosaheb. On account of this, Ramchandra and Bankatlal had grievance against Kashinath. Due to such dispute, there even occurred a violent incident between Kashinath and Ramchandra. Kashinath started harassing his brothers Ramchandra and Bankatlal. After filing of the Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956, Kashinath obtained exparte order to get inventory of household articles and profits from the shops of his brothers Ramchandra and Bankatlal. Due to all these activities, Ramchandra and Bankatlal got fed up. They also suffered loss of reputation due to the inventories taken of their properties, and due to filing of the suit for recovery of amount etc, Ramchandra and Bankatlal thus out of frustration and emotional coercion were forced to enter into compromise in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956. The plaintiff after learning this information, decided to demand partition and separate possession of the share in the suit properties from the family members of deceased Kashinath. They flatly denied to give him the share, and so, on 28th January, 1996, this suit was filed for following reliefs : (1) Declaration that the compromise recorded in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956 was not binding on him and declaration that the defendant No. 7 Ramchandra had no authority to enter into such compromise. (2) The decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956 be set aside being against the interest of the plaintiff. (3) Partition of the suit properties and handing over of 127th share to the plaintiff. (4) Declaration that sale of properties City Survey Nos. 17 1876/1 and 1876/2 in favour of defendants No. 22 to 25 is illegal, void and not binding on the share of the plaintiff and for setting aside of the sale transaction. (5) Account of the income earned by movable and immovable suit properties received by the members of Kashinath’s family and 127th share of the plaintiff in it along with interest @18% per annum. 8. The defendants No. 1, 3, 4 and 6 opposed the suit firstly on the ground of limitation. They further stated that there was no joint family in existence between Raosaheb and his sons. At the time of Raosaheb’s death, his self acquired property came to his three sons, who became 'tenants in common' and were never joint tenants. Ramchandra and Bankatlal were never under any obligation to protect so called interest of their children in the properties which they inherited from their father as tenants in common. There existed no coparcenary between the three brothers and their children after or before Raosaheb’s death. These defendants also mentioned that on 25th July, 1985, the plaintiff, as per the direction of his father (the defendant No.7 – Ramchandra), brought to the defendants the deed of surrender executed by Ramchandra in favour of children of Kashinath, and thus, the plaintiff was aware of the execution of the surrender-deed of Ramchandra. If he knew about this surrender- deed, he also aware of the decree in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956. The defendants further pointed out that the plaintiff and other defendants No. 11, 12 and 14, after making due inquiry of title of the defendant No.2, had purchased certain property from him. This property happened to be one of the properties which Kashinath received at the time of compromise in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956. The plaintiff and the defendants No. 11, 12 and 14 thus are estopped from denying the defendant No.2’s title of the property which they 18 purchased in 1994. These defendants further stated that the compromise in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956 was legal and proper. They pointed out further that the suit was contested by Ramchandra and Bankatlal. An order of appointing receiver on the suit property was also passed. The Court even suggested to appoint an Arbitrator for resolving the dispute. But, ultimately, the reference to the arbitrator was revoked and the suit was taken up for hearing. Thereafter, on 16th December, 1957, the compromise was recorded. They, therefore, suggested that there was no coercion of Ramchandra and Bankatlal to enter into such compromise. These defendants further stated that Kashinath during his life time partitioned the property which he inherited from his father. He even executed a Will. They stated further that Kashinath bequeathed certain property to the defendants No. 17 to 20 (sons of Bankatlal). They, after the demise of Kashinath, took the bequeathed property and have been enjoying the same on ownership basis. The defendants No. 22 to 25 are the purchasers of some of the suit properties. Since the sale transaction in their favour is challenged by the plaintiff, they filed a written statement, raising similar defences, mentioned above. The defendants No. 17 to 20, the sons of Bankatlal took a different line of defence. They stated that the properties held by Raosaheb during his life time were never his self acquired properties, but they were ancestral properties. They pointed out that Raosaheb’s father made fortune in his business and had purchased those properties. They stated that plaintiff and all the defendants are thus coparceners, and so, Kashinath, Ramchandra and Bankatlal had no right to enter into compromise regarding the coparcenary property, which was subject matter of Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956. They 19 further stated that Raosaheb had no debt when he died. They further took up a defence that they learnt about the compromise decree in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1956 only after the present suit was filed. The defendant No.5 is the daughter of Kashinath, and it seems, there occurred some conflict of interest between she and her brothers regarding one of the coparcenary properties. She even filed suit against her brothers, and in view of this, she filed written statement in this