INDRANARAYAN Vs. ROOP NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from a partition suit between two brothers. The plaintiff is the elder brother and the 1st defendant is his younger brother. The second defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of Dr. Sudarshan Pandit, a medical practitioner who practised at Indore. Dr. Pandit had extensive practice. He died on April 6, 1949 leaving behind him extensive properties. His wife had died in 1918. Dr. Pandit had three daughters. We are not concerned with them in this case. The contest is mainly between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. There is also a dispute as regards the ownership of a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by Dr. Pandit in the name of the second defendant.

(2.) The contention of the 1st defendant was that the plaintiff had separated himself from the rest of the family as far back as 1936 and therefore he is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. Further he took the plea that deposits of Rs. 41,000/- in the Bank of Indore and Rs. 50,000/- in Binod Mills which stood in the name of Dr. Pandit till about the third week of March, 1949 had been gifted to him. According to him Dr. Pandit gifted the four deposits totalling Rs. 41,000/- in the Bank of Indore on March 25,1949 and the deposit of Rs. 50,000/- in the Binod Mills on March 30, 1949. The deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by Dr. Pandit in the name of the second defendant was claimed by the second defendant as her exclusive property. She claimed that amount as a gift from her father-in-law.

(3.) The properties with which we are concerned in this suit have been held to be the self-acquired properties of Dr. Pandit. That finding was not questioned before us.