MOTISINGH GULABSINGH Vs. RUKMINIBAI FATEHSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit which was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, for a declaration that the properties detailed in the schedules annexed to the plaint belonged to them, as they were the rightful heirs of Mst. Jhukkobai, widow of Tikaram. The suit was decreed by the trial Court.

(2.) THE relationship between the parties is shown by the genealogical tree as on reverse.

(3.) THE defendants (appellants) stated that they had no knowledge about any partition which took place before 1864, but admitted that Sardarsingh, Jorawarsingh and Girdharilal had separated from the other two brothers Tikaram and Govindsingh. They asserted that Tikaram and Govindsingh continued joint or, at any rate, re -united after the partition and continued joint. After Govindsingh's death, Tikaram and Bhalsingh continued joint till 1912. They denied that the moneylending business which was carried on by them was in the nature of a partnership and stated that it was joint family business of the two coparceners. It was admitted that Tikaram and Bhalsingh had appointed Jadaomal as an arbitrator to divide the properties held by them by metes and bounds and that Jadaomal died after he had partly done the work by dividing the house property. Thereafter, Tikaram's widow Mst. Jhukkobai and Bhalsingh continued the proceedings after appointing fresh arbitrators and the award Exh. P -79 was given by the panchas. This award was subsequently registered and was also made a rule of the Court by the judgment and decree Exhs. D1 and D -2. They pleaded that the award was nothing more than a family settlement or a compromise of a dispute between Mst. Jhukkobai and Bhalsingh. In the award it was stated that Mst. Jhukkobai would not alienate the property in her lifetime and after her death, the whole estate would pass to Bhalsingh to the exclusion of other reversioners. It was pleaded that this agreement was binding on the plaintiffs. It was also suggested that the property was given to Mst. Jhukkobai in lieu of her right of maintenance and not as a co -sharer of the joint family. It was further pleaded that the award amounted to a will or a gift by Mst. Jhukkobai in favour of Bhalsingh and therefore the interest of Mst. Jhukkobai passed to the defendants after her death.