DURGA PRASAD Vs. GHANSHIAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE consolidated appeals from a judgment and decree on the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which varied a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge at Aligarh, have involved the close scrutiny of a large number of documents covering a long period of years. In this task their Lordships have been greatly assisted by the diligent researches of counsel for the appellants, but after a careful consideration of all the material before them they have come to the conclusion that no sufficient reason has been shown for displacing the judgment of the High Court.

(2.) THE appeals raise the question in broadest outline whether there has been a separation of an undivided Hindu family of which the common ancestor was one Bhawani Das, who died very many years ago. THE family and the parties to the suit out of which these appeals arise can be conveniently seen in the following pedigree : Bhiwani Das. ______________________________:_________________________________ (adopted, dant No.7. Chet Ram Basdeo Prasad Bhimsen Tota Ram. 11-7-13 ). (born 1915 ). (died before or Sahai (died 1913 ). Defendant : : : : : Girdhari Lal Kashi Ram Chain Sukh Mohan Lal. Tika Ram. (died 1864 ). : (died 1885 ). : Matru Mal Behari Lal (died 1918 ). (died 1902 ). ________:____________ :_________________________ : : : Yad Ram, Ghanshiam _________________________________________ Defendant No.6,: : Das, Defen : : 1902 ). Defendant No.1 : No.3. Musammat : : Rukmin, widow Ramesh Ch. : Defendant No.4 minor,: : Defendant No.2 : Chhote Lal : (deceased ). ______________:_______________ Musammat : : : Gango widow, Durga Prasad,gaya Yad Ram, Defendant No.5 Plaintiff Prasad, Defendant No.1 Plaintiff No.6 (born 1908 ). No.2, adopted by minor. Matru Mal.

(3.) BY their plaint the plaintiffs pleaded inter alia that (a) during the time of Bhawani Das Girdhari Lal and his brothers there was no family property or fund and that Matru Mal, Kashi Ram and Bihari Lal acquired property and collected funds by their own efforts, (b) that Matru Mal adopted Yad Ram and executed a will on December 17, 1913, whereby he bequeathed his property in equal shares to Yad Ram and to his natural son, if any, born to his second wife, and that thereafter Ghanshiam Das was born so that he and Yad Ram became the owners of Matru Mal's property in equal shares, (c) that both Bihari Lal and Matru Mal carried on a separate money-lending business, the former under the style of Kashi Ram Bihari Lal and the latter under the style of Girdhari Lal-Matru Mal and that in addition they carried on a joint business under the style of Kashi Ram-Matru Mal of which they were joint owners in equal shares, (d) that since the death of Matra; Mal in 1918 all these concerns had been managed and supervised by Basdeo alone, (e) that the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 5 had remained joint and defendant No.1 (Basdeo) was the manager and supervisor thereof, (f)that by reason of the dishonest dealings of Basdeo and his failure to render accounts the plaintiffs did not wish to remain joint and claimed partition, (g) that defendants 4 and 5 were entitled only to maintenance, but as some of the Zamindari properties stood recorded in the revenue papers against their names "for their consolation. " they too had been impleaded, (h) that defendants 6 and 7 (Ghanshiam Das and Yad Ram) were entitled to a moiety share in the joint property and the money dealings of Matru Mal and Bihari Lal, and (i) that in 1911 Matrumal had constructed a temple and given some of the Zamindari property out of his half share in the Zamindari to defendant No.8.