RAMLAL AGARWAL Vs. RAMPRATAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arc filed by defendants 1, 2, 3 to 14 respectively in Original Suit No. 182 of 1982. The suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs half share in plaint schedule properties and to render true and proper account in respect of the businesses run by the defendants with regard to items 3, 4 & 5 of plaint schedule and to determine plaintiffs share and for other relief's.

(2.) Plaintiffs' case is that one Saheb Ramjee who was the common ancestor of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 was doing Kirana and Grocery business, besides supplies to military. His son Pokerdas also joined the business and both of them carried on the business in petrol and petroleum products for a considerable time during their lifetime. After the death of Saheb Ramjee, Pokardas along with his sons Motilal and Chunilal constituted joint family and carried on business in the name of M/s Pokardas Chunilal. Chunilal, father of the plaintiffs died in the year 1952, while Pokardas in the year 1961. Motilal, eldest son of Pokardas also died in the year 1974. During their life time both Motilal and Chunilal were living jointly with their father Pokerdas and were carrying on family business in petrol and petroleum products. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Motilal, who died in the year 1974. After the death of Motilal, the family business was carried on jointly by the defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiffs as joint family business. In the Income Tax returns, the business in petrol and petroleum products was shown as joint family business. After the death of Pokardas, Motilal being the elder of two brothers was representing the joint family as Kartha, and after the death of Motilal, the first plaintiff being the eldest is representing the joint family as Kartha and the said business was called "Rampratap Ramlal" which was a joint family business.

(3.) The ancestral joint family house which is item-I of plaint schedule known as Golconda house and the income from the said house is being utilised by defendants 1 and 2 for which they have to account for. Item-II of plaint schedule is business run under the name and style "M/s Rampratap Ramlal" at House No.6-2-1011/1 and 6-2-1010/A Khairtabad, Hyderabad. There is subsisting contract with Indian Oil Corporation Limited to carry on business in petrol and petroleum products. Like-wise, item-Ill is also a joint family business run under the name and style of M/s Deccan Service Station, opposite to Public Gardens, Hyderabad. Like-wise, item-IV of plaint schedule is another business run under the name and style of "M/s Ameerpet Service Station" near Saradhi Studios, Ameerpet, Hyderabad which is also a joint family business. In Item-V of plaint schedule which is a business carried on under the name and style of M/s Motilal Chunnilal, situated at Mukkaramjahi Road, Hyderabad, the joint family of plaintiffs and defendants has a half share while the other half share belonged to Chunilal S/o Jai Narayan. Items-VI, VII & VIII of plaint schedule are sites along with super structures which have been acquired from out of the joint family business and joint family funds, and as such, they are all joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. Item-IX of plaint schedule consists of moveables such as antiques etc. In pursuance of an oral agreement the family business run under the name and style of "M/s Rampratap Ramlal" was being looked after by the plaintiffs; while the joint family business run under the name and style of M/s Deccan Service Station and M/s Ameerpet Service Station was being looked after by defendants I and 2. Since 1978 the half share of the joint family in the business run under the name and style of M/s Motilal Chunnilal was not being disclosed by defendants 1 and 2 and as such it has become difficult for the first plaintiff to file tax returns without showing the income from the said firm. As such, plaintiffs issued a legal notice calling upon the third defendant to disclose the share of income derived by the joint family from M/s Motilal Chunnilal from the year ending Deepavali 1978 onwards. It appears, defendants 1 and 2 have entered into some arrangement with the third defendant in respect of the 50 per cent of joint family share in the business of M/s Motilal Chunnilal. Plaintiffs are in joint possession of Items-VI to VIII of plaint schedule along with defendants I and 2 As the defendants are not co-operating in disclosing the share of income of business run under M/s Motilal Chunnilal, plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.