RAMDAS CHABILDAS Vs. CHABILDAS LALLOOBHOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Judge, from whose decree in favour of the 1 respondent, Chabildas Laloobhoy, this appeal is preferred, has held that the sum of Rs. 15,000, which the said respondent received from his undivided brothers under an agreement (Ex. R.) in the year 1866, was, on the analogy of a gift by a Hindu father to his son, a gift by the joint family consisting of the respondent and his brothers, in consideration of the services he had rendered to the family. Apart from the question whether any such analogy applies to a transaction such as this between brothers, and whatever its legal character and effect as between the parties to the agreement the sum received by the respondent from the joint family would retain its character as ancestral, as between him and his sons if the source whence it came was an ancestral fund of the family.

(2.) The question whether Rs. 15,000 received by the respondent under the agreement came from such source will, however, arise only if the release (Ex. S.), on which the respondent substantially founds his claim, is binding on his sons and grandsons, against whom, among others, the declaration sought has been allowed by the decree under appeal.

(3.) That was a release executed by the 1 respondent's two sons Ramdas and Cursondas, on the 5 of April, 1889. The learned Judge, who tried the suit, has held, the release to be binding upon them and their sons. That finding is assailed in this appeal by the appellants, Ramdas and his two sons, Suryakant and Jaysang. Cursondas, the other son of the 1 respondent Chabildas Laloobhoy, having died, was represented in the suit by his widow, Bai Hirabai, and son, Mansen, both of whom were also impleaded as defendants in their personal capacities. They are not appealed against the decree; but the appellants have joined Mansen to this appeal as the 2nd respondent. He, appearing by counsel, has taken up a non-contentious attitude as to this appeal, as he did with reference to the suit.