AMAR NATH Vs. SUNDER LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal of Amar Nath, Plaintiff whose suit for a declaration, that the family partitions effected on 24th of March, 1938, and 28th of July, 1942, were not binding on him was dismissed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Jagadhri, on 30th of November, 1955.

(2.) SUNDER Lal and Brij Lal, Defendants 1 and 2, respectively, are brothers of Amar Nath Plaintiff, while Defendants 3 and 4 are 4th degree collaterals and Defendant 5 is fifth degree collateral of the Plaintiff. Raja Ram and Mani Ram, Defendants 6 and 7, respectively, are the alienees of the property which had fallen to the share of the Plaintiff. The following pedigree -table would be helpful in understanding the relationship between the Plaintiff and his relation -Defendants:

(3.) WRITTEN statements in resistance of the suit were filed by Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5. The second Defendant, who is the Plaintiff's own brother, denied that Amar Nath was an idiot and stated, on the other hand, that he (Amar Nath) was in enjoyment of "sound intellect at the time of registration of the deeds" which are now sought to be challenged. According to this Defendant, only properties Nos. 1 to 3, which are Havelis, were ancestral, while properties Nos. 2, 5 and 6 belonged to Kundan Lal, property No. 4 was owned by Janki Das and Kundan Lal, while property No. 7 belonged to Sunder Lal, the first Defendant, by virtue of a will which was executed in his favour by Mangal Sain. Property No. 8 was purchased by the second Defendant from Raj Kumar, and, similarly, property No. 9 had been mortgaged in his favour by means of a registered deed of 4th of May, 1951 and the property (No. 9), having been redeemed, cannot now be a subject -matter of the dispute. Property No. 10 had been purchased by Defendants 3 to 5. There being a dispute about the first three properties, this Defendant asserts that a mutual settlement was reached on 24th of March, 1938 whereby a portion of one of the Havelis and the Bailkhana were given to him and his two brothers. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 joined the second Defendant in denying the right of the Plaintiff to bring the suit. It was asserted that the Plaintiff was neither insane nor an idiot and had been conducting his retail business at all relevant times. The Plaintiff had prolonged litigation with the owners of the shop, in which he was a tenant and had been pursuing this case as well as others. In 1940 the Plaintiff gifted this property in favour of his wife and got suits filed on her behalf against his own brothers, and this litigation culminated in their dismissal in the year 1951. As mentioned before, Defendants 3 to 5 denied the joint family nature of the property, but, as disputes had been raised, a compromise was effected.