SATISH CHANDRA GORAI Vs. BINAPANI GORAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendants arises out of a suit for partition of the one-fifth share belonging to the plaintiff. Apart from this relief, the plaintiff wanted a decree for rendition of accounts from the defendants.

(2.) The plaintiffs case, in short, was that one Dinanath Gorai had five sons, namely, Satish, Amulaya, Ramratan, Gour and Gokul. The first-four sons are defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, in this action. The plaintiff is the widow of the fifth son Gokul. Dinanath died on the 3rd of March, 1949, leaving his widow Makhanmani. Dinanath died in a State of jointers with the defendants and his other son Gokul with the result that each son got one-sixth share and the widow as well got one-sixth share. Gokul, husband of the plaintiff, died on the 30th of June 1950. Subsequently, Makhanmani also died on the 7th of September 1953, and after her death her share devolved on the defendants and the plaintiff with the result that the plaintiff got one-fifth share in the properties belonging to this family. The plaintiff, further asserted that the defendants were misappropriating the joint family property and they did not give her due share, to these circumstances she filed the suit giving rise to this appeal on the 22nd August 1956 for partition in respect of the properties described in the various schedules of the plaint.

(3.) The case of the defendants, on the other hand, was that the family was not joint and Dinanath was the sole and exclusive owner of the properties during his lifetime. The only income from the properties was royalty from coal lands and paddy from agricultural lands. The royalty received from the coal lands had to be spent in paying the dues of the superior landlords. After the death of Dinanath on the 3rd of March 1949 all his sons separated from one another and occupied separate, portions of the residential houses. The defendants had separate business and they acquired properties separately with which the plaintiff had no concern. According to them, the plaintiffs husband died before the death of Makhanmani with the result that Makhanmani's one-sixth share was inherited by the defendants alone to the exclusion of the plaintiff, and in this manner their contention was that in any event the plaintiff had only one-sixth share and not one-fifth. They further asserted that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for rendition of accounts inasmuch as she failed to make out a case of misappropriation and fraud.