PARMA NAND Vs. SUDAMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute between the parties is in respect of the following properties :-

(2.) Admittedly, the properties in dispute were purchased in the individual name of respondent-defendant No. 1 Sudama Ram and are also recorded as such in the revenue record. The claim of the appellant-plaintiff is that the properties in dispute were purchased with the funds of Joint Hindu Family constituted of him, Sudama Ram and pro forma respondent-defendant No. 2 Chaudhary Ram, who are real brothers. Sudama Ram has disputed this claim and asserted that the properties in dispute are his individual properties purchased from his separate income.

(3.) Both the Courts below have though held that the properties in dispute were purchased at the time when all the three brothers, Parma Nand, Sudama Ram and Chaudhary Ram, were constituting a Joint Hindu Family and that there were lands of Joint Hindu Family which could provide nucleus for the purchase of the properties in dispute, yet, the claim of Parma Nand is rejected that the properties in dispute are Joint Hindu Family properties on the ground that he has failed to prove that the said nucleus was sufficient with which the properties in dispute could be purchased. Both the Courts below have not examined whether Sudama Ram had separate income sufficient to purchase the properties in dispute in his individual name on the ground that this would have been necessary had Parma Nand discharged the onus to prove that the nucleus was sufficient to purchase the properties in dispute. Now, in the present Regular Second Appeal, Parma Nand has challenged these findings.