HIRA LAL CHAUDHURY Vs. RAMANAND CHAUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendant No. 1 arises out of a suit for contribution.

(2.) The plaintiff is a son of Jialal Chaudhury who was a cousin of defendant No. 1. Both Jialal and defendant No. 1 were previously members of a Hindu undivided family. Shortly stated, the plaintiff's case is that the family properties were partitioned under a final compromise decree passed on 4-7-1949, in Partition Suit No. 27 of 1940. On the other hand the case of defendant No. 1 is that there was a previous partition between the members of the family, and that the compromise decree merely confirmed the partition. The Courts below have, however, hold that the parties were joint, and that partition was effected only under the compromise decree.

(3.) The Agricultural Income Tax authorities assessed income-tax on the income of the entire joint family properties, and the status of the asses-see was described to be that of a Hindu undivided family. The assessment was, however, in the name of Jialal alone. He had, therefore, to pay the tax. The suit is for realisation of contribution from the other members of the joint family, including defendant No. 1. The Courts below have decreed the suit, and hence defendant No. 1 has preferred this second appeal.