CHHABILAL SINGHA Vs. JHARULAL SINGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Is a defendants' appeal and it arises out of a suit for partition and accounts.

(2.) The plaintiff No. 1 is the father and the plaintiff No. 2 is the son. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant No. 1 the brother of the plaintiff No. 1 and the sons of the defendant No. 1 being defendants Nos. 2 to 7. The wife of the defendant No. 1 was impleaded in the suit as pro forma defendant No. 8. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that out of items Nos. 1 to 27 of immovable properties mentioned in the schedule 'ka' in the plaint, some were ancestral properties of the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 and some were acquired after the death of their father with the ioint family fund. It was further alleged that items Nos. 28 and 29 were acquired by the defendant No. 1 with the joint family fund in the benami of his son and wife respectively. The plaintiffs alleged that these two items of properties were also joint family properties. The plaintiffs claimed partition of one-half share in the immovable properties described in schedule 'Ka' and moveable properties described in schedule 'Kha'.

(3.) The case of the defendants was that the immoveable properties described in items Nos. 5 and 7 were acquired by the defendant No. 1. These two properties were gifted to the defendant No. 1 by the owners thereof as rewards for services rendered by him. Regarding items Nos. 28 and 29 the defendants alleged that those were acquired by the defendant No. 2 Tapesh, the son of defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 8 the wife of the defendant No. 1 respectively with their own funds. The defendants denied that those properties, namely, items Nos. 5, 7, 28 and 29 were joint family properties. The defendants also denied the plaintiffs' claim for accounts. The defendants did not dispute the plaintiffs' claim regarding the other items of properties mentioned in schedule 'Ka'. Regarding the moveable properties mentioned in schedule 'Kha' to the plaint the defendants alleged that the movables were divided between the parties in 1363 B, S. The defendants claimed some of the movables as belonging to the defendant No. 1 exclusively and denied the existence of bricks mentioned in item No. 18 of Kha Schedule.