LAWS(BOM)-1939-4-9

RAM NARAYAN SAHU Vs. MUSAMMAT MAKHNA

Decided On April 20, 1939
RAM NARAYAN SAHU Appellant
V/S
MUSAMMAT MAKHNA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMESHWAR Sahu (died 1913) _____________________________________________:__________________ : : : : : Ram Das Ram Narain : Parsotam Raghunandan = Sampat (Plaintiff-Appellant) (Died c. 1918) : Devi : : : : Ganesh : Lachmi Narain : (minor) _______________ Mst. Mst. (minor) : Mantorta Mansuria (Plaintiff-Appellant) : Deo Narain = Mst. Makhna (Died 5th (Defendant-Respondent) August, : 1927) Mst. Shaman

(2.) THE sole question in this case is whether at the date of his death (August 5, 1927), Deo Narain was separate in estate from all the other members of his family ; or whether he was joint with the plaintiffs-appellants, viz. his brother Ram Narain and Lachmi Narain, the latter's son. If he died a separated Hindu, then, as he left no son, his widow, Musammat Makhna (defendant-respondent), became heir to his property; if at the time of his death he was a member of a joint Hindu family, his interest passed by survivorship to his coparcener. Both Courts in India have held in favour of the widow that he died separate.

(3.) FROM May, 1924when the trial Judge in the partition suit accepted the respondent's demand that Deo Narain's share should be separateduntil July, 1928, when this decision was reversed by the High Court, the two) branches of Ram Narain and Deo Narain acted as though they were separate in interest and in title. Till 1924, they had messed and lived jointly, but they ceased to do so in about May, 1924. The trial Court has in the present suit found that Ram Narain acted as a divided member in matters connected with marriages and funerals. " Ram Narain himself had acquired and accepted severance by his unambiguous conduct. " It is, however, objected by his learned Counsel that the order of May 27, 1924, in the partition suit, had left him no option in the matter pending his appeal to the High Court from the final decree.