BHANWARIA Vs. RAM RATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Bhanwarial against the judgment and decree of the Civil and Additional Sessions Judge on Jodhpur in a suit for partition.

(2.) THE plaintiff originally claimed one third share in the property in dispute. Later, on the death of Kanvaria, the plaint was amended, and a claim for half the property was put forward, THE undisputed pendigree of the family is thus - Jethu Dayaram Lalu (issueless) Ghela (issueless) Rambux Bhabut (Pltf) Kanvaria (Deft. 2) Ramratan (Deft. 1)

(3.) IN any case, the mere fact that in borrowed for constructions is no proof that the money was spent on the construction. The trial court has held, on the basis of two pro-notes, which recited that money was borrowed for constructions, that Rs. 3,074/- were spent on the constructions. But the trial court forgot that these pro-notes were of Svt. 1941 and 1942, while, according to Mst. Tulsi, the constructions were complete in Svt. 1996 which is equal to 1939-1940. The position, therefore, is that though some money must have been spent on the constructions, the plaintiff has failed to prove the actual amount so spent. IN this connection, reference may be made to Bhai Asuram vs. Bulaqi Das (4) in which is was held there were the defendant did not produce accounts of the income he derived from the property during the period of possession, and there was nothing on record to show the present value of the improvements elected by him, the defendant was not entitled to any compensation for the improvements.