SITARAM Vs. SURAJBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of this second appeal preferred by the defendants in a suit for partition instituted by Ramgopal and his brother Shyamsunder in respect of a house situated in the city of Jaipur.

(2.) THE following pedegree table would show the relationship of the parties: Rameshwar Balmukan Sheolal Nathuram Gopinath Ramchandra Vamanlal Kishanlal Nathulal Ramgopal P. No. 1 Shyamsunder P. No. 2 Laxminarain Sitaram D. 2 Gokul D. 2 Shri Ram D. 3 Narain D. N. 4 Satyanarain D. No. 6 Gopilal D. No. 5

(3.) SO far as the question of house tax in concerned no receipt has been produced, but it does appear from certified copy of the order of Revising Authority of the Municipal Council, Jaipur dated 22-1-1955 that the parties had been shown as co-owners in the house and house tax was assessed separately with respect to the apart-ments in their respective possession In case of the plaintiffs Ramgopal & Shyamsunder it was assessed at Rs. 5/6/- and in case of the defendants it was assessed at Rs. 10/13/-Thus the total tax assessed on the house in dispute was Rs. 16/3/ -. The method of assessment adopted by the Revising Authority goes to show that the parties were in exclusive possession of the house, and were not living jointly. Then there is Ex. 6. a permission granted by the Municipal Committee. Jaipur to Nanulal and Kishen Lal allowing them to do repairs to the latrine in their house by plastering the same with lime. This document does not throw any light on the question whether the house had been partitioned or continued to be joint inasmuch as the latrine was, according to the defendants, being treated as common even after partition.