LAWS(SC)-1977-2-23

BAI MANI Vs. MANILAL LALLLBHAI

Decided On February 07, 1977
BAI MANI Appellant
V/S
MANILAL LALLL'BHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the legal representatives of the defendant in the suit by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Gujarat. The suit was filed by Manilal Lallubhai and his widow Bai Mani against Nanabhai Fakirchand for partition and allotment of one-half share of the suit house and the moveable properties mentioned in the plaint. One Fakirchand had three sons, Nathubhai, Lallubhai and Nanabhai. Nanabhai is the defendant whose legal representatives are the present appellants in this Court. Lallubhai's son, Manilal, was the first plaintiff and his mother and widow of Lallubhai, Bai Nani, was the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff is since dead and her legal representatives are respondents 2 (b) and 2 (c) in this appeal. Nathubhai, Lallubhai and Nanabhai were originally the members of a joint Hindu family.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs, respondents in this appeal, is that the three brothers Nathubhai, Lallubhai and Nanabhai were members of a joint undivided Hindu family and when they were joint in the year 1940 Nathubhai died leaving his widow Bai Kashi. Subsequently in the year 1942 Lallubhai died. On 24th January, 1956 Bai Kashi, the widow of Nathubhai, died while the family continued to be a joint undivided Hindu family. According to the respondents the properties were never partitioned though the three brothers were staying and messing separately and each branch carried on its business separately. The family immovable and movable properties were never divided. The respondents also questioned the validity of a sale deed executed by Bai Kashi on 25th April, 1955 in favour of the appellants of her share in the immovable property as it was not for legal necessity.

(3.) In the written statement the appellants denied that the three brothers were members of a joint family. They pleaded that the brothers were separated and each branch used to do its own business keeping their earnings separately and messing separately. So far as the suit house was concerned it was divided though not by metes and bounds and the brothers lived in separate portions of the house. The appellants claimed that they were entitled to 2/3 share in the house as Bai Kashi the widow of Nathubhai had sold her share by registered deed 25th April, 1955 to the appellants.