HORILAL Vs. JUNGLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal u/s. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant challenging dismissal of part of the relief claimed in the suit, it being decreed partly in his favour and not in its entirety. Original plaintiff Horilal and original defendants i.e., defendants No. 1 Junglu, No. 2 Gendlal and No. 3 Shiv Prasad Bhuruwa, all sons of Sukru, are real brothers. According to the plaintiff, Sukru was not well off and was initially residing at Simga and later on shifted to village Jhara. He was engaged in the business of Betel leaves. Defendant Junglu came to Raipur and became Coolie in the goods shed and had developed ill habits. Defendant No. 2 Gendlal was brought up by Mana Bai, his maternal aunt (Mausi). Thus Junglu and Gendlal used to reside separately and Sukru was residing with the remaining two sons namely plaintiff Horilal and original defendant No. 3 Shiv Prasad in the village for a substantial period and thereafter they came to Raipur. The plaintiff also came to Raipur in 1956-1957 and made handsome profits in the business of Betel leaves. He obtained one shop on lease from Municipality in the name of his father bearing Municipal No. 340 at Goal Bazar. This shop is contained in Schedule "B" enclosed with the plaint. He purchased one house in the name of his father at Aminpara, Raipur, described in Schedule 'C' of the plaint in the year 1962. He also purchased some land in his own name and some other pieces of land in the name of his father at village Semaria in 1965. All these properties were purchased by the plaintiff from his self-earned income though in the name of his father. By registered will dated 04th August 1975, Ex-father Sukru bequeathed all his property in the name of plaintiff. Sukru died in Raipur on 08.12.1978. After his death, the defendants started dispute about the ownership of the properties mentioned in schedule B & C giving rise to proceedings u/s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which in turn gave rise to filing of present suit.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit inter alia pleading and denying that defendant No. 1 came to Raipur leaving his father. They also denied that defendant No. 2 was brought up by Mana Bai (Mausi). It has been pleaded by them that the defendants used to be a part of the joint family and were assisting their father in the business as in fact their father Sukru was not happy with the plaintiff because he was not assisting in the business of the joint family. He was in the habit of doing his own work but then used to come back with his father. According to the defendants, father Sukru was doing business alongwith the defendants leaving plaintiff Horilal who was looking after the agricultural operations in the village. It has been further stated that the plaintiff was very aggressive in nature and that the shop at Gol Bazar was obtained on lease by defendant No. 2 and the property purchased by Sukru belongs to joint family and the alleged will relied upon by the plaintiff is a forged document having been obtained from the father by making false representation in a fraudulent manner. It has also been stated that defendants 2 & 3 are residing in the house at Aminpara and the shop at Golbazar is in possession of defendant No. 2 and the agricultural lands are in joint possession of all the parties.

(3.) At the end of trial, the learned trial Judge has recorded findings that the will is not proved as it is not a genuine document and that various properties purchased in the name of respective purchasers mentioned in the sale deed belongs to them and the shop at Gol Bazar is leased out in the name of defendant No. 2 Gendlal and is shown as such in the municipal records belong to him, therefore, the plaintiff was declared exclusive owner of only such property which was purchased in his own name or in the name of his minor son Devnarayan. In the property purchased in the name of Sukru, plaintiff was declared 1/4th share-holder/ownership and his suit with regard to the shop at Gol Bazar has been dismissed.