RADHAKISHAN Vs. GAJANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Radhakishan against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Churu. dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for partition of his one-third share in the family property.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that he had separated from his father Gajanand and his brother Satnarain on the 19th of November, 1939, though the property of the family still remained undivided by metes and bounds. THE plaintiff went on to say that while he was in Calcutta his father Gajanand executed a deed of partition on the 30th January, 1948. By that deed, his father, according to the plaintiff's version, gave to himself almost one-half of the ancestral property, and left the other half to be divided between the plaintiff and Satnarain. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit for his one-third share in the joint family property claiming, that as there had already been severance of status as far back as 1939, his father was not entitled to make the partition which he did on the 30th January, 1948. To this suit Gajanand Satnarain and Rukmanand, to whom Gajanand had sold certain properties which he had taken in his share by the partition of January, 1948, were originally parties. Kamladevi, step-mother the plaintiff, and wife of Gajanand, was also made a party on the objection of the defendants, and no her own application that she was interested in the property as partition was being, claimed.

(3.) THE last witness in Nauranglal, He says that he did not given any share to his wife when there was a division between him and his sons: but in cross-examination he had to admit that he gave cash to his wife. If the wife receives cash it immaterial whether she gets a share in the property on division of the joint, family property or not. All that is necessary is that the wife should also get something.