RUKHMABAI Vs. LALA LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following judgment of the court was delivered by :

(2.) THIS appeal by certificate is directed against the decree and judgment of the High court at Nagpur, reversing those of the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur, in Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1940. It would be convenient at the outset to give the following genealogy which would help to understood the contentions of the parties. (The geneology is given on the next page). Ramesahai (d. 1897) Ganesh Parsad (d. 1928) Daughter Mst. Rukhmahai == Lala Sheoshankar (defendant 1) Ramesahai (d. 1897) Ajodhya parsad (d. 1912) Adopted son Chandanlal (d. 31/1/1940) == Window Mst. Annapurnabai (defandant 2) <IMG>JUDGEMENT_335_AIR(SC)_1960Image1.jpg</IMG> During the life time of Ramasahai, he and his eight sons and one cousin, namely, Sitaram, constituted a joint Hindu family with Ramasahai as its managers The joint family carried on its ancestral family business of excise contracts in several districts in the former C. P. & Berar provinces. On January 24, 1897, Ramasahai died and, at the time of his death, the family, though heavily indebted, had extensive properties distributed at various places like Nagpur, Kamptee Rajnandgaon, Raipur, Jabalpur etc. Sarjooprasad died in 1903, Ajodhya prasad in 1912, Mangalprasad in 1914, Jankiprasad in 1923, Ratanlal in 1926, Ganeshprasad in 1928, Govindprasad in 1934, and Ramchand in 1940. On 27/02/1915, Ganeshprasad, Jankiprasad, Govindprasad, Ratanlal and Ramchand, the surviving brothers executed a registered deed of relinquishment in favour of Jankiprasad. In that document it was recited that the brothers had become separated on January 24, 1898, by a deed of relinquishment of that date and that, as the said document was not registered, they were executing a fresh one confirming the earlier arrangement. On 17/02/1916, Govindprasad executed a trust deed in favour of his nephew, Chandanlal, the son of his deceased brother Ajodhyaprasad, and his niece, Rukhmabai, the daughter of his brother Ganeshprasad, both of whom were minors at that time. In that deed Govindprasad, after asserting that he had become divided from his brothers under the aforesaid two deeds of relinquishment, created a trust in a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 for the benefit of the said minors, handed over the said money to the trustees appointed thereunder and. directed them to construct a building or buy a land and pay the net income from the said property in equal shares to the two minor beneficiaries. With a part of that amount a site was purchased in Cotton Market, Nagpur, and between the years 1916 and 1921 a building was constructed thereon. On or about 25/10/1929, Rukhmabai filed a suitagainst Chandanlal for partition of the said property and obtained a decree against him on 5/01/1934, for partition and mesne profits. Chandanlal filed an appeal against that decree and it was dismissed. After the said decree, Chandanlal died on 31/01/1940. When the Commissioner appointed by the court went to the building to effect the partition by metes and bounds, the respondent, who was in the house, obstructed the Commissioner, and thereafter on 8/10/1940, filed a suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for a declaration that the said trust deed executed by Govindprasad in favour of the appellant and Chandanlal was a sham document.

(3.) BEARING the aforesaid principles in view, we shall now proceed to consider the main issue in the appeal. The appellant naturally relies upon the document of 1898, in support of her case that Govindprasad renounced his interest in the joint family property in the year 1898. That document is Ex. D. 54-A, dated January 24, 1898, and is described as ` farkatnama `. The seven brothers, Ganeshprasad, Ajodhyaprasad, Jankiprasad, Ratanlal, Mangalprasad, Sarjooprasad and Ramchand, executed the said relinquishment deed in favour of Govindprasad. It is stated therein as follows: ` ... we are not pulling together well in affairs and you and we are not on good terms in family treatment. III-will between you and us all brothers is consequently growing more and more from day to-day. Similarly, as (our) father himself involved all ancestral property into debt and the remaining movables were partitioned by all at that very time, no movable and immovable ancestral property has now remained. Consequently, we all have to undergo trouble and sustain., loss in our business. We, therefore, execute this pharkhatnama (deed of relinquishment) and hereby declare as follows: Each brother should from this day enjoy his own self acquired property and that he may acquire with his personal exertions-articles, grain, cash, movable and immovable property, so on and so forth. One has no connection with another, of family relation in property, transactions ... (torn), dealings and the like, of others. Each should enjoy his benefit and sustain his loss ... (torn) unless (we) give voluntarily (some 'property) to your children and (you) give voluntarily (some property) to our children, (they) shall have no manner of right against each other `.`