severed from the family. Further, he has also admitted that in the year 1985 his uncle sold Grampancahyat property No.248/2 to one Dnyandeo Maruti Rahane and Gangadhar had not given share from that property to Changdeo or the plaintiff. That transaction was not a disputed by Changdeo or the plaintiff. Here, it can also be seen that merely because in respect of one property if the other member of the joint family does not take any objection, that does not mean that he has given up his share. Further, the question was asked that from that property no share was given. The suit property is definitely different. He further admitted that after his father expired, neither Gangadhar nor the defendants had given income from the suit property to plaintiff’s mother or to the plaintiff. With respect to the learned Advocate for the appellant this will not amount to exclusion as contemplated under Article 110 of the Limitation Act because the further rider is that the said exclusion should become known to the plaintiff. No specific question to that effect was asked to the plaintiff. We cannot just rely upon the plaintiff’s evidence in that respect. When the exclusion is claimed by the defendant, the defendant should show that by his acts / their acts that they had made it known to the plaintiff that they are excluding the member of the joint family. In the cross-examination of the defendant’s witness
