MAHADEO Vs. HANUMANMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision, arising out of a suit for partition.

(2.) THE case has a chequered history. Defendant Mahadeo petitioner is the father and the plaintiff Hanuman Mal (who has died since the institution of this revision petition and is now represented by respondents Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (j) was the son of mahadeo. Baboolal respondent is the second son of Mahadeo. Mahadeo had two brothers Chaturbhuj and Kaluram. Chaturbhuj left no issue and Kaluram had one son Gordhan Prasad, who is also one of the respondents before me. Hanumanmal filed the suit for partition in the Court of Civil Judge, Ratan-garh on 13-1-1953 against Mahadeo, Baboolal and Gordhan Prasad alleging that his grand-father chandanmal had left a 'haveli' in Ratangarh in which Gordhan Prasad had half share which had already been partitioned by metes and bounds and thus there remained the other half share in which he, his brother Baboolal and his father mahadeo were entitled to get 1/3rd share each. He also averred in the plaint that there was some moveable joint family property belonging to himself and his father and brother which too had to be partitioned. He valued 1/6th share in the Haveli to which he was entitled at Rs. 2000 and 1/3rd share of the moveables at Rs. 500 and thus valued his suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction at Rs. 2500. It was proved that the Haveli may be partitioned by metes and bounds and he may be put in possession of 1/6th share of the same. It was also prayed that the moveable property may be partitioned and 1/3rd share in the moveable property may be ordered to be given to him.

(3.) DEFENDANT Gordhan Prasad remained absent in spite of service and was proceeded against ex parte. Mahadeo filed written statement but did not contest the plaintiffs claim but on the other hand admitted it. Defendant No. 2 Baboolal in his written statement, pleaded that besides the house mentioned in the plaint there were some more properties liable to be partitioned. He pleaded that a suit for partial partition could not lie and that the entire joint family property including the assets of the joint family firm Chandanmal Mahadeo should be partitioned. His case was that if all the properties liable to be partitioned were taken into consideration then the share of the plaintiff alone in those properties would be more than Rs. 10,000. He therefore, contended that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Ratangarh, who was competent to try suits of valuation of not more than Rs. 10. 000, On the pleadings of the parties the learned Civil Judge. Rahtngarh framed six issues in all which read as under:-