Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal, 1873

This is an appeal from the decision of first Subordinate Judge of Ratnagiri.

Fact

The respondent is the 5th lineal descendant and the appellant is the 4th lineal descendant of Udhav (the original owner of the property).

Issue

1. Whether the respondent (plaintiff) is entitled to ask for partition of ancestral property or not?

• Ans- No, because plaintiff is the 5th lineal descendant of the original owner.

Ratio and Observation

1. JUSTICE WEST
• No partition may take place after fourth descendants from common ancestor. 
• The special Sapinda relationship ends with the fourth descendant.
2. JUSTICE NANABHAI HARIDAS
• No partition suit can at all lie between the appellant and the respondent.

• The lower court was erred in holding that the property in dispute was joint ancestral property. In the present case, the respondent was not a co-parcener being the 5th descendant and therefore he had no right to ask for partition in the coparcenary property.
• The doctrine of ancestral property vested by birth in one’s son, grandson, and great- grandson. This capacity does not extend beyond the fourth descent.

Judgment

The appeal allowed and the court held that the respondent had no right to ask partition being the 5th descendant or coparcener of an ancestral property.

Summary

A partition cannot be demanded by one more than four degrees removed from the last owner of the property not acquirer of original owner of the property.