RAM CHANDRA Vs. SUKH DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal out of a suit for partition.

(2.) THE plaintiff appellant Ramchander and the respondent -defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Sukhdeo and Satyadeo are brothers. The respondent -defendant No. 3 Smt. Lal Kanwar is the real mother of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and step mother of the plaintiff. The father of the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 died on 8 -11 -1950 leaving behind the appellant and the respondents as his heirs. The plaintiff's case is that his relations with the step mother and the step brother.? were strained, and, therefore, he had started living separate from them even during the life time of his father Sheodeo, and soon after his father's death he gave notice to the defendants to partition the joint family property belonging to the parties. But the defendants turned a deaf ear and consequently he filed the present suit on 17 -1 -1951 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur for partition of the family property and claimed that his father had left ancestral immovable property as well as ornaments of gold weighing 73 Mohars, cash Rs. 9386/ - and household articles worth Rs. 300/ -. The suit has was resisted by the defendants on a number of pleas which it may not be necessary to reproduce here as the only points which survive for decision in this appeal are: (1) whether a decree for partition of the ornaments as mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint should be granted in the plaintiff's favour? and (ii) whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any share out of the cash alleged to have been left by the plaintiff's father at the time of his death.

(3.) THE learned District Judge from whose judgment this appeal has been preferred has negatived the plaintiff's claim for partition of ornaments and cash He has held that the plaintiff's allegation that his father Sheodeo had left gold ornaments 73 Tolas in weight has not been proved by clear and cogent evidence. But at the same time assuming that these ornaments were there at the time of Sheodeo's death, he has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had got his share of the ornaments in the shape of a 'Bot' and a 'Teek' in the life time of Sheodeo' and these ornaments were worth more than 1/4th share of the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff's claim for partition of the ornaments was negatived.