JAI NATH JHA Vs. KAMALA NATH JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs (appellants) seeking to have set aside the decision of the District Judge of Durbhanga, dismissing an application made by them under Section 525 of the old Civil P. C., that an award be filed in Court. The plaintiffs are the members of the elder branch of a Hindu family of which Mon Mohan Jha was the original head and the defendants are members of the junior branch. The plaintiffs are grandsons of Mon Mohan Jha through his elder son Ganganath Jha and the defendants are one Kamala Nath Jha, the grandson of Mon Mohan Jha through his younger son Tejnath Jha, and Sibnath Jha his grandson through Poovinath Jha the son of Tejnath Jha. The family was originally a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law: and on the death of Mon Mohan Jha, Ganganath Jha, his elder son, became the karta. On the death of Kamala Nath, his elder son, Poovinath, is said to have become guardian of his younger brother Kamala Nath and on his death Ganga Nath became guardian of Kamala Nath and Sib Nath. Kamala Nath attained majority before the year 1898 and Baidya Nath a son of Ganga Nath is said to have been appointed guardian of Sibnath.

(2.) On the 31 December 1898, an ekrarnama is said to have been executed by Ganga Nath Jha, on the one side as representing his branch of the family and by Kamala Nath Jha, on his own behalf and as guardian for Sibnath Jha, as representing the younger branch. In that document it was stated that though the family had been all along joint, the two branches had agreed to separate and that they had in consequence become separate in mess some short time previously. Accordingly from that day the two branches had separated and the document was executed with the object of dividing the properties and debts of the family between the two branches. In pursuance of that object three persons were appointed as arbitrators for the purpose of honestly and faithfully dividing the properties and debts between the two branches of the family. The award was not delivered till the 25 May 1905 and only one of the three arbitrators who submitted the award was included in the three arbitrators originally selected. It was this award that the plaintiffs applied to have filed in Court.

(3.) The suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on the 1 November 1905 and after frequent postponements it was, on the 28 January 1907, transferred to the file of the District Judge.