SANTOSH KAKKAR Vs. RAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for partition of the movable and immovable properties left behind by late Shri Badrinath Talwar who had died on 2.11.1976, and for rendition of accounts in respect of the income received by defendant No. 1.

(2.) Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendant No. 2 are the daughters whereas defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are the sons of the deceased Shri Badri Nath Talwar whereas defendant No.5 is his daughter-in-law being the wife of defendant No.1, Plaintiffs claim 3/7th share in the properties left behind by the deceased.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs the deceased owned a plot of land measuring 500 sq. yds. in the Colony of Burma Shell Housing Cooperative Society situated at Ring Road, New Delhi (for short the 'Society') and a house situated at 18, Tagore Road, Kanpur Cantt., Kanpur. Besides, he had Bank accounts with M/s. Grindlays Bank Ltd., Parliament Street, New Delhi, Hindustan Commercial Bank, Kanpur, Bank locker with Hindustan Commercial Bank, Kanpur, gold jewellery household property including silver crockery, cutlery, furniture and furnishing etc., alleged to be in possession of defendant No. 1 defendant No. 1 is also realising rent of part of the property situated at Kanpur which has been let out. It is alleged that the defendant No. 1 has not rendered any account inspite of several demands. As regards the plot of land in the Society it is alleged that defendant No. 5 had been appointed as a nominee by the deceased and she is holding the property as a nominee, and this property also devolves on the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4 in equal share. The plaintiffs denied that the deceased has left behind a Will or had created a joint Hindu family in respect of his self-acquired property as claimed by the defendant No. 1 in reply notices as copies of documents were not supplied to them on demand being made. Accordingly, this suit for partition, separate possession and also rendition of accounts. Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 have filed joint written statement contesting the suit on various pleas both legal and on merit. It is alleged that the deceased during his life-time had declared a joint Hindu family alongwith his son defendant No. 1 in respect of his self acquired properties which were also being so assessed; the deceased has also left behind a Will dated 12.7.1972 whereby he had bequeathed his interest in the said joint Hindu family properties including the house at Kanpur to defendant No. 1. As regards the plot of land in the Society it is stated that defendant No. 5 is the nominee appointed by the deceased transferring his share in it but the aforesaid Society has not so far allotted any land to her. It is denied that the deceased had left behind any jewellery, the Bank accounts were joint with defendant No. 5, and the balances in the Bank accounts belong to her; except some old furniture/household goods no other property was left behind by the deceased. Defendant No. 2 has filed separate written statement supporting the case of the defendants 1 and 5. After filing the written statement she has not appeared in the case. Plaintiffs have filed replications to the written statements denying the factum and validity of the Will as well as the creation of the joint Hindu family by the deceased with the defendant No. 1 and have re-affirmed the pleas taken in the plaint. Defendants 3 and 4 have not appeared and were proceeded ex parte. However, during the pendency of the proceedings defendants 3 and 4 had died and their legal representatives have been substituted and brought on record. They also remained ex parts.