GHUIA DEVI Vs. SHYAMLAL MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal 457 of 1964 and First Appeal 551 of 1964 have been heard together. First Appeal 457 of 1964.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. It arises out of a suit for partition of her share to the extent of eight annas in the properties described in Schedules A to C and four annas share in Schedule D attached to the plaint as well as a decree for accounts against the defendants first party.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff-appellant, shortly put. is that one Gokul Mandal was the common ancestor of the parties. He had two sons. Gobardhan and Ghoghan. Gobardhan had also two sons. Shvamlal (defendant No. 1) and Kisan. the husband of the plaintiff. Ghuia Devi. Ghoghan. had also a son. Suchit Naravan (defendant No. 9). The descendants of Ghoghan were made defendants second party to the suit and those of Shvamlal defendants first partv. The genealogy given in the plaint is not denied, and it is the admitted case of the parties that the husband of the plaintiff, the defendants first party and the defendants second partv formed a ioint Hindu family. The further case of the appellants is that during his lifetime Gokul managed the properties and on his death Gobardhan. his eldest son, became the karta of the family. During the lifetime of Gobardhan. Shvamlal (defendant No. 1) used to help his father in the management of the joint family properties and. on the death of his father he himself became the Kanta of the ioint family. Some of the properties were ancestral and others were acquired by the ioint Family. In 1951 there was a partition between the two branches, namely the branch of Shvamlal and that of Ghoghan. After the partition, Shvamlal. began to act as the Karta of the joint familv consisting of the members of Gobardhan's branch. Thereafter, some properties were purchased by Shvamlal, and they also formed part of the ioint family properties. The appellant is a pardanashin lady. Shvamlal. taking advantage of her position, misappropriated the familv property and its income. Hence, the suit giving rise to this appeal was filed.