LAWS(HPH)-1965-7-3

MINA RAM Vs. AMOLAK RAM

Decided On July 17, 1965
MINA RAM Appellant
V/S
AMOLAK RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition is directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu, calling upon the petitioner to pay additional court- foes, on the plaint filed by him.

(2.) The petitioner had brought a suit, against respondent No. 1 and others, for a declaration that the lands and houses, described in the plaint, were joint Hindu family property of the petitioner and respondent No. 1, for separate possession, by partition, of his half share, in the houses and for rendition of accounts. The suit was based in brief, on the following allegations:

(3.) The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are real brothers Respondent No. 2 is their step-brother. Their father died in August, 1932, leaving behind movable and immovable property. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 held the properly, after the death of their father, as members of a joint Hindu family. After some lime, respondent No. 2 separated, but the petitioner and respondent No. 1 continued to be joint. With joint funds the petitioner and respondent No. 1 acquired more lands, built more houses and also laid an orchard and nursery. The property, acquired with joint funds, was the joint Hindu family properly of the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The petitioner, who was in service at Simla, used to visit his house in Kotkhai, occasionally. Respondent No. 1 used to manage the joint Hindu family property, on behalf of and for the benefit of the joint family. The petitioner had been receiving profits of the joint orchard and other joint property till 1960. The petitioner was, thus, in possession of the joint family property actually and constructively. After 1960, respondent No. 1 failed to render accounts of the joint property. The petitioner found it difficult, to live under a joint roof, with respondent No. 1. He, therefore, applied for the partition of the joint lands. Respondent No. 1 challenged the right of the petitioner in the joint family property. The petitioner, therefore, instituted the suit for a declaration, separate possession of his share, by partition, and rendition of accounts.