TMI Blog1965 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was by mistake that the defendant's name was mutated in the village records in place of Maha Chand, who died on September 16, 1925. They further alleged that the defendant lost her right to maintenance due to her leading an unchaste life. This contention, however, was not accepted by the Courts below and is no more for consideration. It was on the other allegations that the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the entry of the defendant's name in the column of ownership in the Jamabandi papers was wrong, that they were the owners and possessors of the property in suit and that the defendant had no right therein. They also claimed a permanent injunction against the defendant restraining her from alienating or leasing any of tile properties in favour of any person or causing interference of any kind in the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendant contested the suit alleging that her husband Maha Chand, along with the plaintiffs, did not constitute a joint Hindu family at the time of his death, that he was separate from the plaintiff's and that he was living separate from them, that the property In suit was neither ancestral property nor the property of the join ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before the High Court was that the entry in Maha Chand's name as owner of one-third share in the Jarnabandi and similar entry in defendants name after the death of Maha Chand was correct as irrespective of the fact whether the family was originally a joint Hindu family or not the joint Hindu family stood disrupted by the conduct of the parties and therefore there was no question of the plaintiffs' getting the entire property by survivorship. Reliance was placed on the entries in the revenue records with respect to Maha Chand and the defendant after him owning one-third share in those properties and about her possession upto 1946-47 and on the defendant's being impleaded in several suits by the plaintiffs as a co- plaintiff and in one suit as a defendant. The High Court considered this evidence sufficient to prove disruption of the joint family as the mutation entries in the revenue records could not have been obtained by the defendant surreptitiously or without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs and as none of the plaintiffs objected to her being entered as a co-sharer with them after the death of Maha Chand which showed that there was no joint Hindu family a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... am Narain, father of the plaintiffs and Maha Chand. There is nothing in the judgment of the High Court as to when severance of the Hindu joint family took place. The mere fact that mutation entry after the death of Ram Narain was made in favour of three brothers and indicated the share of each to be one-third, by itself can be no evidence of the severance of the joint family which, after the death of Ram Narain, consisted of the three brothers who were minors. Ram Narain died in 1923. Maha Chand died in 1925 and is said to have been about 17 or 18 years of age then. The plaintiffs were of even less age at that time. There was no reason why just after the death of Ram Narain the three brothers should have separated. It is true, as the High Court observes, that Bhagirati could not have manipulated the mutation entries after the death of Maha Chand surreptitiously. It is not alleged by the plaintiffs that she got the entries made wrongly in her favour by some design or able means. There is however nothing surprising if the mutation entry had been made without the knowledge of the appellants who were minors at the time. Their minority win also explain the absence of any objection to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bharat Singh, appellant no. 1, instituted 5 suits on behalf of himself Kirpa Ram and Bhagirati. All these suits related to agricultural land. DI, D2, D3 and D4, the plaints in four of these suits, were in the name of the plaintiffs and Bhagirati and it was stated in them that the plaintiffs were the proprietors of the agricultural laid in suit. With respect to the admission in these plaints that Bhagirti was one of the proprietors, Bharat Singh stated that lie had been including her name in the cases tiled against tenants in accordance with the revenue papers. This is a sound explanation. So long as an entry in the defendant's name stood in the revenue papers, suits in revenue Court-,. as these suits were, had to ha filed in those names. D-5 is the plant of a suit by Bharat Singh and Kirpa Ramn Instituted on April 6, 1943. Bhagirti is implement as defendant no. 1. Para 1 of plaint stated that defendants nos. 2 to 5 were non-occupancy under the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1. and Para 3 stated that defendant no. 1 being absent, could not join the suit and that therefore she had been made a pro-forma defendants When Bharat Singh made the statement on November 27, 1953 I do rot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chand had separated in 1923 during the life time of Ram Narain himself. The finding of the High Court is that the disruption of the joint family took place after Ram Narain's death. Giani Ram does not belong to the family. No reason exists why disruption of family should have taken place in the life-time of Ram Narain. The fact that Ram Narain or his mother are not said to have got any share of the agricultural land when disruption took place, does not stand to reason. No mutation entry appears to have been made in the village papers at the time of the alleged partition in the life-time of Ram Narain. Giani Ram is much interested in the case of the defendant as he holds a decree against her. Further, firm Shiv Prasad Giani Ram sued firm Jairam Das Ram Narain (the family firm of the parties herein) through Bhagirati for the recovery of the money the defendant firm owed to the plaintiff firm on the basis of bahikhatha accounts. Giani Ram, through whom the suit was instituted, and Bhagirati entered into an agreement for referring this dispute to arbitration. In this agreement signed by Giani Ram and Bhagirati, she was described as proprietrix of the joint Hindu firm known as Jair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a whole did not contain any admissions on behalf of Bhagirati that there was any joint family still in existence. The legal objection to the consideration of these admissions was based on the Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Firm Malik Des Rai v. Firm Piara Lal (A.I.R. 1046 Lab. 65). The view taken in ,hat case was differed to by the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ayodhya Prasad v. Bhawani Shanker (A.T.R. 1957 All. 1) The punjab High Court based its decision on the observations of the privy Council in Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas Pandit (L.R. 42 I.A. 135) fiat case, however, did not directly deal with the use of admissions which are proved but are not put to the person making the admissions when he enters the witness box. The entire tenure of he documents whose certain contents were construed by the High Court to discredit the persons making those admissions went to support their case and did not in any way support the case of the other party. The Privy Council. expressed its disapproval of the High Court minutely examining the contents of the documents and using its own inferences from those statements to discredit the oral statements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaintiff and the two defendants were members of the joint Hindu family. In para 3 she stated that the joint Hindu family mentioned in para 1 held the property mentioned therein and this property included residential property and the business of two firms. She further stated in para 4 that defendants 1 and 2, the present plaintiffs, were running the business of the firms in the capacity of managers and that she did not want to keep her share joint in future. She had instituted the suit for partition of the property and the firms mentioned in para 3. P.W. 2, clerk of Shri Inder Singh Jain, pleader, scribed this plaint and has deposed that the pleader had prepared the brief in accordance with the instructions of Bhagirati and that he had written out the petition and plaint and that it had been read out to her. He denied that the thumb marks of Bhagirati were secured on a plain paper and that the plaint was written later on. This suit was withdrawn. Again, in 1950, she instituted another suit against the present plaintiffs and one Han Narain, for a certain declaration. In para 1 of the plaint it was stated that the three shops mentioned therein belonged to the joint Hindu family fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
