• Today: October 31, 2025

Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal (1873) 10 Bom. 444

31 October, 2025
101
Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal (1873) 10 Bom. 444 — Hindu Joint Family Partition | The Law Easy

Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal (1873) 10 Bom. 444

Hindu joint family partition — who can demand a split, and how degrees of descent are counted.

Bombay High Court 1873 10 Bom. 444 Hindu Joint Family ~6 min read
```
partition suit degrees of descent last owner rule
Illustration of partition in a Hindu joint family for Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal
Author: Gulzar Hashmi  |  Location: India  |  Published: 31 Oct 2025
```
```

Quick Summary

CASE_TITLE Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal (1873) 10 Bom. 444

This case explains who can ask for partition in a Hindu joint family. The Court said: count the degrees from the last owner, not from the original acquirer. If the claimant is more than four degrees away from the last owner, they cannot demand partition.

Judgment overview graphic for Moro Vishwanath v. Ganesh Vithal

Issues

  • Are the plaintiffs entitled to demand a partition as members of an undivided family?

Rules

Rule of Counting Degrees

Partition rights are measured from the last owner who held the property, not from the original acquirer. A person beyond the fourth degree from the last owner cannot demand partition.

Illustrative Example

If A acquires property and later A’s great-grandson D1 survives, the sons of another great-grandson (E and F) cannot sue D1 for partition of A’s property. D1 takes alone by representation; their claim is too remote.

Adding more descendants changes shares, not the basic right of eligible members to share as a joint family.

Family tree timeline visualizing degrees from the last owner

Facts (Timeline)

Common Ancestor: Parties descend from Udhav, who first acquired the property in dispute.

Degrees: Plaintiffs are beyond, and defendants are within, the fourth degree from Udhav.

Suit & Objections: Some defendants admitted partition; others objected on (1) valuation, (2) limitation, and (3) alleged separation for ~50 years.

Trial Court: Found for plaintiffs on all points and passed a decree for partition.

Remand Findings: High Court sent the case back; on remand, the court held the suit not barred and the property joint ancestral.

Decree: On 4 September 1872, partition was decreed—now under appeal leading to the reported decision.

Arguments

Appellant

  • Claim barred by limitation.
  • Parties separated long ago; property not joint.
  • Improper valuation of the claim.

Respondent

  • Family remained undivided; property is ancestral.
  • Suit filed within time.
  • Valuation proper; partition should be decreed.

Judgment

The Court settled the degree test: a person more than four degrees from the last owner cannot demand partition, even if the person is closer to the original acquirer. The decree for partition stood on the finding that the property was joint ancestral and the suit was not time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi

Count proximity from the last owner, not the original acquirer. Representation does not extend beyond the fourth degree for the purpose of demanding partition in a Hindu joint family.

Why It Matters

  • Gives a clear yardstick for who may sue for partition.
  • Prevents remote claims that unsettle settled possession.
  • Separates share calculation from the right to sue.

Key Takeaways

  1. Ask: “Who was the last owner?” then count degrees.
  2. Beyond four degrees from the last owner → no partition claim.
  3. More members can change share sizes, not the eligibility.
  4. Joint status and limitation still matter as fact questions.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: LAST-4-PARTLast owner, 4 degrees, Partition right.

  1. Spot the last owner of the joint property.
  2. Count the claimant’s degree from that person.
  3. Decide: ≤ 4 → eligible; > 4 → not eligible.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can the plaintiffs, as members of an undivided family, demand partition?

Rule: Partition right is limited to those within four degrees of the last owner, not the original acquirer.

Application: Considering descent from Udhav, and findings that the property was joint and the suit within time, the eligible members could seek partition.

Conclusion: Degree counted from the last owner controls; partition decree sustained on facts.

Glossary

Undivided Family
Family living together with joint property and community of interest.
Last Owner
The most recent person in the line who held title before succession.
Degree of Descent
Generational distance measured from a specific ancestor or owner.
Representation
Right by which a descendant takes the share of an ancestor who predeceased.

FAQs

Start at the last owner and move down each generation to the claimant. Count each generation as one degree.

No. It changes share values, not the right to sue for eligible members.

It is a fact question. If separation is proved, joint status ends; here, the court found the property remained joint.

Yes, but it depends on dates and pleadings. In this case, the suit was held not time-barred.

Page Metadata

  • PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: partition suit; Hindu joint family; degrees of descent; last owner rule; Bombay High Court
  • SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: representation; ancestral property; limitation; valuation; separation; undivided family
  • PUBLISH_DATE: 31 Oct 2025
  • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
  • LOCATION: India
```
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Hindu Law Partition Bombay High Court

Comment

Nothing for now