ARJUN RAM PAL Vs. SADANANDA SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in a suit to obtain a declaration that a certain hut (together with doors, door frames etc.), is liable for the dues on account of a decree which the plaintiffs had recovered against the defendant No. 1, who is the father of defendant No. 2. Both the lower Courts have found that the hut is the property of defendant No. 2, and this fact cannot be assailed in second appeal. But it is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, first, that the defendant No. 1 is entitled under the Hindu Law to a half share of the self-acquired property of his son the defendant No. 2, and, secondly, that the hut, being the joint family property of both the defendants, the father is the owner of half of it which can be sold in execution of the decree.

(2.) A preliminary objection that no appeal lies has been abandoned by the learned Vakil for the defendants-respondents. The suit was not one of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes and a hut is immovable property. Thus Section 102, Civil Procedure Code, has no application to the facts of this case, and a second appeal lies.

(3.) The second contention is concluded by the finding that the hut was never treated as joint family property by the defendant No. 2; it was, and remains, his self-acquired property. It was not erected out of any joint funds.