:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2004 1.Shri Prabhakar Gones Prabhu Navelkar, major of age, married, retired Government Servant and landlord and His wife. 2.Smt. Usha Prabhakar Navelkar, since deceased through her legal representatives: 2a. Amol Prabhakar Navelkar, major, married, and his wife, 2b. Mrs. Nalina A. Navelkar, major, both residing at Porvorim Goa. 2c. Mrs. Anuradha Devendra Kakodkar, major, married and her husband, 2d. Mr. Devendra V. Kakodkar, major, Both residing at Near Solmar Hotel, Miramar, Goa. 2e. Mr. Ajit Prabhakar Navelkar, major, residing at Porvorim Goa. 3.Shri Premanand Gones Prabhu Navelkar, major, married, occupation Advocate and landlord, and his wife, 4.Smt. Durga Premanand P. Navelkar, major, married, Both residents of Ratnadeep Building, Division – B, Opp. Rajendra Prasad Stadium, Margao Goa. ... Appellants V e r s u s 1.Shri Saradchandra Suria Prabhu Navelkar, major of age, married, at* :2: occupation landlord, and his wife, since deceased through his legal heirs: 1a. Shri Dr. Suryaji C.P. Navelkar, married and his wife, 1b. Smt. Suryaji Navelkar, 1c. Shri (Advocate) Arun C. P. Navelkar, married and his wife, 1d. Smt. Arun Navelkar, All residents of Taleigao, Ilhas Goa. 1e. Smt. Usha Anil Ghode, wife of 1f. Shri Anil Ghode, since deceased through his L/Rs. i) Usha A. Ghode, ii) Amrish A. Ghode, iii) Anagha N. Nayak, iv) Naresh S. Nayak, having their address at Shrivardhan, Sonum Township, St. Jose De Areal, Salcete, Goa. 2.Smt.Kamala Sharadchandra P. Navelkar, resident of Taleigao Goa. 3.Shri Venctoxa Suria Prabhu Navelkar, major of age, married, occupation service and landlord and his wife, 4.Smt. Mohana Venctoxa P. Navelkar, major of age, residents of Fondvem, Ribandar, Goa. 5.Shri Ramchandra Suria Prabhu Navelkar, since deceased through legal representatives: 5a. Geeta R. Navelkar, 5b. Pradeep R. Navelkar ( Since deceased ) 5b(i) Smt. Vanita P. Prabhu Navelkar, 5b(ii) Kum. Siddhi P. Prabhu Navelkar (minor) represented by her mothr and natural guardian Smt. Vanita P. Prabhu Navelkar, Both residents of Fondvem, Near Police Station, Ribandar Goa. at* :3: 5c. Dileep R. Navelkar, 5d. Smt. Nutan Dileep R. Navelkar, 5e. Seema R. Navelkar, All r/o Ribandar, Near Police Outpost. 6.Smt. Indira Ramchandra Navelkar, since deceased through legal representatives of Respondent no.1. 7.Shri Mahesh Ramchandra P. Navelkar, major of age, unmarried, residing at Ribandar, Goa, near Hospital, 8.Shri Ravindra Sharadchandra P. Navelkar, major of age, unmarried, s/o Sharadchandra Navelkar, resident of Taleigao, Dona Paula, Goa. 9.Shri Gajanan Pundalik Navelkar, (since deceased through legal representatives already on record, as respondents 10 to 21 ) 10.Shri Balkrishna Gajanan P. Navelkar, major of age, married, occupation service, and his wife, 11.Smt. Smita Balkrishna Navelkar, 12.Smt. Girija Ambadas Kamat, major of age, married, occupation household and her husband, 13.Shri Ambadas Y. Kamat, 14.Smt. Chandrakala Chandrakant Poi, major of age, married, occupation household and her husband, 15.Shri Chandrakant N. Poi 15a. Smt. Chandrakala Chandrakant Poi, 15b. Mrs. Dipali Mahesh 15c. Mr. M. S. Mahesh, Both residing at H.No.529, Sena Vihar Kammannahalli,Main road, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore 560 0042. 15d. Mrs. Sulakshna Pandit, at* :4: 15e. Mr. Navaneet Annapa Pandit Both residing at No. 1214/70A -Navaneet, 22nd Cross, 2nd Block Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010 16.Smt. Chitra C. Deshpande, major of age, married, occupation household, and her husband, 17.Shri C. R. Deshpande, occupation Service, 18.Smt. Kalpana R. Phadnis, major of age, married, occupation service and her husband. 19.Shri P. Phadnis, 20.Smt. Radha Gajanana Navelkar, major of age, unmarried, occupation service, d/o Gajanana Navelkar, 21.Smt. Vandana Gajanana Navelkar, major of age, unmarried, d/o Gajanana Navelkar, All residing at Janab Court, 2nd Floor, Opp. Batia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai, 22.Vinayak Purxottoma P. Navelkar, ( Since deceased through his legal representatives, and his wife) 22a. Shri Purxottam alias Lalu Vinayak Navelkar, ( since deceased through his legal representatives): 22a.i. Miss Lavina P. Navelkar, 22b. Smt. Krupa P. Navelkar, 22c. Shri Avdhoot Vinayak P. Navelkar, married to, 22d. Smt. Sheetal Avdhoot Navelkar, 22e. Shri Harish Vinayak Navelkar, married to, 22f. Smt. Smitha Harish Navelkar, at* :5: All residing at Porvorim, Near Sai Motors Garage, 23.Smt. Kumudini Vinayak Navelkar, occupation household, residing at Porvorim, Near Sai Motors Garage, 24.Smt. Ramabai, since deceased through her legal representatives, already on record as respondents no.22 and 23. 25.Shri Moreshwar Nagendra P. Navelkar, major of age, married, and his wife, 26.Smt. Jotsna Moreshwar Navelkar, residing near Gomantak Press, St. Inez, Panjim Goa. 27.Shri Mohan Nagendra P. Navelkar, major of age, occupation landlord, married and his wife, 28.Mrs. Mohan Navelkar, resident of Ponda Goa. 29.Smt. Loximibai, widow of Nagendra Porobo Navelkar ( since deceased through legal representatives: 29a. Champa Lavande, 29b. Dr. Madhav Lavande, Both residing Opp. Goa Flour Mill, Chicalim, Goa. 30.Smt. Jaishree Vishnu Kamat, married, occupation household, and her husband. 30a) Shri Gaurish Vishnu Kamat, major in age, 30b) Smt. Kshama Gaurish Kamat, major in age, Both residents of near Ram Mandir (Azossim-Mandur ) Dongari, Tiswadi Goa. 31.Shri Vishnu Ranganath Kamat, Occupation service at* :6: Both residents of Dongrim, Mandur, Ilhas. 32.Shri Govind Fondu Dalal, major of age, business, resident of Corlim, Mapusa. ... Respondents. WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2004 1.Shri Prabhakar Gones Prabhu Navelkar, major of age, married, retired Government servant and landlord and his wife, 2.Smt. Usha Prabhakar Navelkar, since deceased through her legal representatives: 2a. Amol Prabhakar Navelkar, major, married, and his wife, 2b. Mrs. Nalina A. Navelkar, major, Both residing at Porvorim Goa. 2c. Mrs. Anuradha Devendra Kakodkar, major, married, and her husband, 2d.Mr. Devendra V. Kakodkar, major, Both residing at Near Solmar Hotel, Miramar, Goa. 2e. Mr. Ajit Prabhakar Navelkar, major, residing at Porvorim Goa, 3.Shri Premanand Gones Prabhu Navelkar, major, married, occupation Advocate and landlord, and his wife, 4.Smt. Durga Premanand P. Navelkar, major, married, Both residents of Ratnadeep Building, at* :7: Division-B, Opp. Rajendra Prasad Stadium, Margao Goa. ... Appellants V e r s u s 1.Shri Ramchandra Suria Prabhu Navelkar, since deceased through legal representatives: 1a. Geeta R. Navelkar, 1b. Pradeep R. Navelkar ( Since deceased ) 1b(i) Smt. Vanita P. Prabhu Navelkar, 1b(ii) Kum. Siddhi P. Prabhu Navelkar ( Minor) represented by her mother and natural guardian Smt. Vanita P. Prabhu Navelkar, Both residents of Fondavem, near Police Station, Ribandar Goa. 1c. Dileep R. Navelkar, 1d. Smt. Nutan Dileep R. Navelkar, 1e. Seema R.Navelkar, All r/o Ribandar, Near Police Outpost. 2.Smt. Indira Ramchandra Navelkar, since deceased through legal representatives of Respondent No.1, 3.Shri Mahesh Ramchandra P. Navelkar, major of age, unmarried, residing at Ribandar, Goa, near Hospital 4.Shri Ravindra Sharadchandra P. Navelcar, major of age, unmarried, s/o Sharadchandra Navelkar, resident of Taleigao, Dona Paula, Goa. 5.Shri Saradchandra Suria Prabhu Navelkar, major of age, married, occupation landlord, and his wife, since deceased through his legal heirs: 5a. Shri Dr. Suryaji C. P. Navelkar, married and his wife, 5b. Smt. Suryaji Navelkar, at* :8: 5c. Shri ( Advocate) Arun C.P. Navelkar, married and his wife, 5d. Smt. Arun Navelkar, All residents of Taleigao, Ilhas Goa. 5e. Smt. Usha Anil Ghode, wife of 5f. Shri Anil Ghode, since deceased through his L/Rs i) Usha A. Ghode, ii)Amrish A. Ghode, iii)Anagha N. Nayak, iv) Naresh S. Nayak, having their address at Shrivardhan, Sonum Township, St. Jose De Areal, Salcete Goa. 6.Smt.Kamala Sharadchandra P. Navelkar, resident of Taleigao, Goa. 7.Shri Venctoxa Suria Prabhu Navelkar, major of age, married, occupation service and landlord and his wife, 8.Smt. Mohana Venctoxa P. Navelkar, major of age, residents of Fondvem, Ribandar Goa, 9.Shri Gajanan Pundalik Navelkar, ( since deceased through legal representatives already on record, as respondents 10 to 21) 10.Shri Balkrishna Gajanana P. Navelkar, major of age, married, occupation service, and his wife, 11.Smt. Smita Balkrishna Navelkar, 12.Smt. Girija Ambadas Kamat, major of age, married, occupation household and her husband, 13.Shri Ambadas Y. Kamat, 14.Smt. Chandrakala Chandrakant Pol, major of age, married, occupation household and her husband at* :9: 15.Shri Chandrakant N. Poi, 15a) Smt. Chandrakala Chandrakant Poi b) Mrs. Dipali Mahesh, c) Mr. M. S. Mahesh, Both residing at H.No.529, Sena Vihar, Kammannahalli, Main Road, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore – 5600042 d) Mrs. Sulakshna Pandit, e) Mr. Navaneet Annapa Pandit, both residing at 1214/70A “Navaneet”, 22nd Cross, 2nd Block, Rajaji, Bangalore 560 010. 16.Smt. Chitra C. Deshpande, major of age, married, occupation household, and her husband, 17.Shri C. R. Deshpande, occupation service, 18.Smt. Kalpana R. Phadnis, major of age, married, occupation service and her husband, 19.Shri P. Phadnis, 20.Smt. Radha Gajanana Navelkar, major of age, unmarried, occupation service, d/o Gajanana Navelkar, 21.Smt. Vandana Gajanana Navelkar, major of age, unmarried, d/o Gajanana Navelkar, All residing at Janab Court, 2nd Floor, Opp. Batia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai, 22.Vinayak Purxottoma P. Navelkar, ( Since deceased through his legal representatives, and his wife) 22a. Shri Purxottam alias Lalu Vinayak Navelkar, ( since deceased through his legal representatives): at* :10: 22a.i. Miss Lavina P. Navelkar, 22b. Smt. Krupa P. Navelkar, 22c. Shri Avdhoot Vinayak P. Navelkar, married to, 22d. Smt. Sheetal Avdhoot Navelkar, 22e. Shri Harish Vinayak Navelkar, married to, 22f. Smt. Smitha Harish Navelkar, All residing at Porvorim, Near Sai Motors Garage, 23.Smt. Kumudini Vinayak Navelkar, occupation household, residing at Porvorim, Near Sai Motors Garage, 24.Smt. Ramabai, since deceased through her legal representatives, already on record as respondents no.22 and 23. 25.Shri Moreshwar Nagendra P. Navelkar, major of age, married, and his wife, 26.Smt. Jotsna Moreshwar Navelkar, residing near Gomantak Press, St. Inez, Panjim Goa. 27.Shri Mohan Nagendra P. Navelkar, major of age, occupation landlord, married and his wife, 28.Mrs. Mohan Navelkar, resident of Ponda Goa. 29.Smt. Loximibai, widow of Nagendra Porobo Navelkar ( since deceased through legal representatives: 29a. Champa Lavande, 29b. Dr. Madhav Lavande, Both residing Opp. Goa Flour Mill, Chicalim, Goa. 30.Smt. Jaishree Vishnu Kamat, married, occupation household, and her husband. 30a) Shri Gaurish Vishnu Kamat, at* :11: major in age, 30b) Smt. Kshama Gaurish Kamat, major in age, Both residents of near Ram Mandir (Azossim-Mandur ) Dongari, Tiswadi Goa. 31.Shri Vishnu Ranganath Kamat, Occupation service Both residents of Dongrim, Mandur, Ilhas. 32.Shri Govind Fondu Dalal, major of age, business, resident of Corlim, Mapusa. ... Respondents. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. R. Tamba and Mr. D. Zaveri, Advocates for the Appellants. Shri M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1(a) to (e), 1(f)(i)-(ii), and Respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr. S. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 5a, c, d, e, 6 and 7. Mr. M. D'Silva, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 5, 13(i) and (ii) and 23, 25 and 27. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Judgment Reserved on : 10.08.2009. Judgment Pronounced on : 20.11.2009 JUDGMENT 1. This is a second appeal by unsuccessful plaintiffs. at* :12: 2. Relationship between parties is as follows : (a) Venkatexa and Vithoba were brothers. (b) Ramchandra is son of Venkatexa, and Padmavoti is his wife. (c) Surya and Ganesh are sons of Ramchandra and Padmavoti. (d) Plaintiffs are heirs and successors in interest of Ganesh ( brother of Surya and grandson of Venkatesh who was brother of Vitola ). 3. Plaintiffs filed suit with main prayer as set out in the plaint as :- “(a) For a decree to declare that the plaintiffs together with the defendant nos. 28 and 29 are entitled to 1/8th share in the property Mollans and 1/4th share in the property Bainguinim. The shares of the defendant nos. 1 to 6 in the said two properties being 3/8th and 1/4th respectively and the share of the remaining defendants of the Branch of Vitol Porobo being ½ each in the suit properties”. (Quoted from page 158 of second appeal of paper book ) 4.Foundation of claim in suit is based on documents as follows :- (a) Deed of Gift executed on 9.3.1913 by Venctexa Porobo Navelkar in favour of his grandsons Surya and Ganesh ( sons of Ramchandra and Padmavoti Porob ) in equal shares of the right to ½ of property known as 'Mollans'; (b) Inventory proceedings on the death of Padmavoti wife of Venctexa pertaining to :- (1) Half of the property 'Mollans' excluding gifted portion; (2) Entire right to the property “Baiguinim” was allotted to her daughter Piru also known as Sorospati ( married to Subrai Hori Poi ); (c) Deed of Sale executed on 17.11.1915 by Piru alias Sorospoti and her husband Subrai Poi in favour of Surya and Laxmi ( widow of Vitol Porobo Navelkar who was brother of Venctexa ) in respect of the said one half of property 'Mollans' and entire 'Baiguinim'; at* :13: (d) Deed of Dissolution dated 21.1.1919 between the branches springing out of one brother Venctexa ( viz. his grandsons Surya and Ganesh ) and of the other brother Vitola ( viz. his sons Balkrishna, Purxottama, Srinivas and Nagendra represented by their mother Laxmi); and (e) Deed of Gift was executed on 14.4.1925 by Surya and his wife Shantibai in favour of Ganesh in respect of 1/4th right to property called 'Mollans'. 5. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 claim right to the share in the properties 'Mollans' and 'Baiguinim' as sons and heirs of Ganesh along with their sister Jaishree married to Shri Vishnu Ranganath Kamat, who were joined as defendant nos. 28 and 29 to the suit and are Respondent nos. 28 and 29 in present appeal. 6. The facts which according to the plaintiffs caused them to file the suit as set out in paragraphs 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 and are as summarized as follows :- (a) In the Deed of Dissolution dated 21.1.1919 :- (i)Surya had admitted that 1/4th right to property 'Mollans' and ½ right to property 'Baiguinim' was purchased in his name by Venkatexa under Sale Deed dated 17.11.1915 was for himself and for his brother Gones. (ii)Surya and his wife Shantibai undertook to effect the transfer of registration in the name of Gones. (iii)For this transfer Ganesh has to reimburse to Surya, the payment of ½ of the amount paid by Surya to Laxmi ( widow of Vitol ) in consequence of the settlement of accounts made at the time of dissolution of the society. at* :14: (iv)This payment could be made at any time during his life. (b) Though the Hindu Undivided Family of Navelkars was dissolved, the assets of the family namely the suit properties viz. Mollans and Baiguinim remained in joint enjoyment by all the co- owners including Ganesh ( father of the plaintiffs ). (c)Share of income from joint enjoyment was paid by defendant no.3 i.e. son of Surya and deceased husband of Appellant no.1 herein, initially in the hands of mother of Ganesh and later in the hands of Ganesh himself, until his death in 1978. (d)Defendant nos.1 to 5 did not pay to the plaintiffs their proportionate share of the income collected by them from the suit properties since 1979, after the death of Ganesh. (e) The names of the plaintiffs were not included in Record of Rights in the owners' column of suit lands and therefore, sometime in 1981 plaintiff no.3 filed an application for rectification of survey records. (f) In or about 1983 as there were reports that one or two junior members of the Navelcar's family are making preparation to dispose of some portion of the suit properties by plots. Therefore, plaintiff no.3 published notice in the issue of local English Daily, the Navhind Times dated 10.5.1983 warning the public against entering into any type of deal in respect of the suit properties or the part thereof. (g) That Record of Rights were promulgated in February, 1985 and therefore plaintiff no.1 by his letter dated 22.2.1985 filed his claim. (h) That in or about 1985 a public notice of proclamation appeared in the issue of the Navhind Times dated 25.10.1985 at the behest of Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Central Zone, in connection with coercive recovery of dues of defendant no.31. (i)Plaintiff no.3 had therefore addressed a letter to the Asst. at* :15: Registrar objecting to the proposed sale/auction. (j) Thereafter, plaintiff nos. 1 and 3 approached defendant no.23, who informed them that by a Deed of Partition executed on 31.3.1969 the suit properties were partitioned between the co- owners as per their respective shares therein, which information was also confirmed by defendant no.20 and later by defendant no.23 in or about beginning of January, 1986. (k) That the plaintiffs thereafter obtained certified copy of the said Partition Deed dated 31.3.1969, and the plaintiffs filed the suit on 24.11.1987 contending that the cause of action for the suit arose in or about January, 1986, when for the first time the Deed of Partition dated 31.3.1969 came to the plaintiffs' knowledge, following the notice of proclamation of sale in the Navhind Times 25.10.1985. 7. Contesting defendants, filed written statements in three different groups. 8. The contesting defendants have denied the right claimed by the plaintiffs and cause of action etc. Summary of defence is as follows :- (a) The suit is barred by limitation. (b) Ganesh had ceased to have any right in the suit properties since 1937 when his rights to the property 'Mollans' was purchased in auction ½ by defendant nos.1,3 and 5 and the other half right by the deceased father of defendant nos. 7, 20, 23 and 25. (c) By the document dated 21.1.1919 Surya acknowledged right of Ganesh to 1/8th of Mollans and 1/4th of Baiguinim, however in the said document Surya had only agreed to transfer the right to 1/8th of Mollans and 1/4th of Baiguinim viz. half of the right purchased by Surya vide Sale Deed dated 17.11.1915 subject to and only after fulfillment of the condition precedent that Ganesh pays one half of the amount paid by Surya to Laxmi ( widow of Vitola ) at the time of said settlement of at* :16: accounts. (d) They also denied the contention of the plaintiffs that :- (i) Ganesh had been in joint possession of the suit properties; (ii) Had been paid any income from the suit properties subsequent to 1937 until his death in 1978. (e) That since execution of the Partition Deed on 31.3.1969, these defendants have been exclusively enjoying their shares allotted to them and also sold some of the plots allotted to them in the Partition Deed. 9. Apart from the denial referred in the foregoing para one group of defendants comprises of defendants 1, 2, 30 and 31 which is referred to as first group contested the suit with additional pleas, summary whereof can be narrated as follows :- (a) There is suppression of material facts, that plaint being deficiently stamped. (b) In the year 1915 Surya became the owner of the undivided half of the property Baiguinim and Laxmibai became the owner of undivided 1/4th of Mollans and undivided half of Bainguinim. (c) They have denied that the period of payment of the said amount of Rs. 1000/- decided in settlement deed dated 21.1.1919 was unlimited. (d) By gift deed dated 14.4.1925 Surya and his wife Shantibai gifted undivided 1/4th of the property Mollans to Gonesh. It is further alleged that the gift deed came to be executed in due performance of acknowledgment of the assurance contained in settlement deed dated 21.1.1919. (e) The gift deed dated 14.4.1925 was executed in suspicious circumstances, and might not be a voluntary act on the part of said at* :17: couple. (f) After the death of Surya on 7.5.1925 the inventory proceedings were instituted and by order dated 16.12.1925 1/4th of the property Mollans and ½ of the property Baiguinim was confirmed and allotted to the widow of Surya, Smt. Shantibai. In this proceedings Gonesh intervened/was appointed as a “vogal”, and Gonesh never objected to inclusion of properties in said inventory though he may be entitled to those under the deed of settlement dated 21.1.1919. (g) The position in the year 1925 in relation to suit properties was that 1/4th of Mollans and ½ of Bainguinim belonged to Shantibai and 1/4th of Mollans and ½ of Bainguinim belonged to Laximibai and ½ of Mollans only belonged to Gonesh. (h) As entire share of Ganesh was sold out and Gonesh had no right in the property Mollans any more, and hence Gonesh ceased to have any connection whatsoever to the property Mollans and also with the property Bainguinim. (i) The plaintiffs or the defendant no.28 or their predecessor in title were never in enjoyment and possession of the suit property or any part thereof either jointly or severally, at least from the year 1939. (j) In the partition deed dated 31.3.1969 the suit properties surveyed under No. 17/1, 27/1, 25/1, 23/1 and 24 have been partitioned and separately allotted to defendant nos. 1, 3, and 5 and the suit properties surveyed under survey No. 16/1 and 26/2 have been separately partitioned and allotted to defendants no.7, 20, 23, 30 and 31. (k) The presumption under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code on the basis of entries in survey records, and pleaded that they and other co- defendants are the sole and absolute and exclusive owners of the suit properties to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and the remaining co- defendants. 10. The case of third group, defendants Nos. 3 to 6, support the defence of first group with slight variation as below :- (a) In respect of the deed dated 21.1.1919 they have pleaded that at* :18: Gonesh never expressed any desire to have the transfer made in his favour. (b) Ganesh did not pay any amount concerning dowry of Shantibai and no transfer as mentioned in the deed. (c) Any transfer furtherance thereto was ever effected. (d) Recital in Deed dated 21.1.1919 may at the most amount to a simple promise – agreement of sale on the part of Surya in terms of Article 1584 of Portuguese Civil Code and would not confer on Gonesh any right or interest in respect of the suit properties. (e) As to joint cultivation etc., of the suit properties, it is the case of these defendants that prior to 1944, the suit property used to be leased and the respective rents were shared among the co-owners according to their respective shares and since 1944 up to partition in 1969 defendant no.3 was managing the suit properties and had paid to all the co-owners the respective shares. (f) These defendants have already developed the portion of the property allotted to them and even sold some plots to the third parties on account of their legal entitlement to dispose of the plots allotted to them by the Deed of Partition dated 31.3.1969. 11. The third group of defendant nos. 7 to 27 have pleaded that defendant no.23 had informed the plaintiffs no.1 and 3 about the deed of partition dated 31.3.1969 soon after execution. These defendants have denied that the plaintiffs came to know about the deed of partition for the first time in January, 1986. They have claimed that they are enjoying the suit properties allotted to them as per their shares. at* :19: 12. In the written statement filed by the defendant no.32 he sets out history by which he came to be connected with the family of Navelkars, however except clarifying the facts this written statement has no significance. 13. The defendant nos. 28 and 29 have supported the case of plaintiffs. 14. Learned Trial Court framed as much as 10 issues. Out of these issues, the issues which are decisive and cover the substantial questions of law are issue nos. 1 to 8. Those can be regrouped for convenience as follows :- (a) Issue Nos. 2 and 3 – Right flowing in favour of Gonesh under Deed dated 21.1.1919 and co-ownership. (b) Issue Nos. 4 and 5 – The fact as to whether share in income from properties alleged holding in co-ownership was given to Gonesh. (c) Issue Nos. 1 and 8 - Limitation. (d) Issue Nos. 6 and 7 - Validity of Partition Deed dated 13.3.1969 and survey record based thereon. 15. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.3 was examined as sole witness.