RAMGONDA NINGONDA PATIL Vs. PARAGONDA RAMGONDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of this case are that one Ramgonda Satgonda Patil owned considerable moveable and immoveable property. It appears that the said Ramgonda Satgonda Patil died in 1946. The Respondent herein i.e. Paragonda and the lather of the Appellant i.e. Ningonda were the two sons of Ramgonda Satgonda Patil. After the death of the said Ramgonda Satgonda Patil, the Respondent as well as the father of the Appellant continued to act as the members of joint family. It appears that the father of the Appellant i.e. the Ningonda died in the year 1949, and at that time the Appellant herein was a minor, and his natural mother Gaurabai was his guardian. It appears that the Appellant -Plaintiff and his mother had continued to stay and mess together with the Respondent -Defendant as the members of the joint family. It appears that on 18th April, 1955 a partition had taken place between the Appellant and Respondent and at that time, Appellant was a minor and his mother Gaurabai had represented him. It appears that the lands situated at Maroli were actually divided and the present Appellant and the Respondent were allotted their respective shares. However, the open site at Maroli and the house and shop at Jath were not actually divided by metes and bounds and they were kept in common between the Appellant and the Respondent having 1/2 share each. It appears that the present Respondent was the manager of the joint family, and even after the partition which took place on 18th April, 1955 he continued to manage the house and the shop at Jath on his own behalf and on behalf of Appellant also.

(2.) IT appears that the Respondent herein had leased out the suit property Le. the house and the shop at Jath to the tenants, and he used to recover rents therefrom. It is the case of the Appellant that though from 18th April, 1955 the Respondent used to recover rents of the suit property, he did not give the accounts of the said rents and profits to the Appellant. It appears that the Appellant had attained majority in the year 1967, and even thereafter the Respondent had failed and neglected to give proper accounts to the Appellant. It appears that by a notice dated 22nd August, 1975 the Respondent was called upon by the Appellant to render the proper accounts. However, the Respondent by his reply dated 7th September, 1975 denied the Appellant's claim. Finally, on failure of the Respondent to render the proper accounts, Regular Civil Suit No. 72 of 1975 was filed before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Jath. In the said suit the Appellant -Plaintiff had claimed half share of the amount collected by the Respondent from 18th April, 1955 in respect of the suit property. In the said suit, the Respondent -Defendant had filed his written statement wherein he had admitted that the partition had taken place on 18th April, 1955. It was contended by the Respondent -Defendant that, in the presence of Panchas it was agreed between the Respondent -Defendant and the mother of the Appellant -Plaintiff, that the mother of the Appellant -Plaintiff will be maintained out of the income arising from the suit property. It was contended by the Respondent -Defendant that he was accepting the rent of the suit property for the maintenance of Appellant's mother for life time. It was also contended that he used to manage the suit property and spend towards the repairs and maintenance of the said property.

(3.) WITH regard to first Issue, the Trial Court, after recording the evidence and appreciating the same, answered the first issue in the affirmative that the Plaintiff (Appellant herein) had proved that he had one half share in the suit property. With regard to the second issue the Trial Court also came to the finding in the affirmative that the Defendant (Respondent herein) was liable to maintain accounts towards the share of the Plaintiff -Appellant. With regard to the third issue the Trial Court had also come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff (Appellant herein) was entitled to the accounts from the Defendant (Respondent herein) and therefore had answered the third issue in the affirmative. With regard to the fourth issue the Court came to the finding in the negative, holding thereby that the Defendant had failed to prove that the share of the Plaintiff was set off against Serial No. 58 of Maroli for the maintenance of Girajabai, the mother of the Appellant -Plaintiff.