KAULESHAR RAI Vs. BANWARI RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The one point seriously pressed before us in this case is that the decree of the Courts below should have been one without specification of the plaintiff's share in the property. The other points have no force.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff Banwari Rai and the defendants Nageshar Rai and Kauleshar Rai come from the same family, being the descendants of one Ramphal Rai. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that a certain property detailed at the bottom of the plaint was the joint family property of the parties (among others), but that the defendants treated the same as their separate property. He asked for a declaration that in the aforesaid property his share was one-half. In the alternative he asked for possession over his half-share.

(3.) The Courts below, that is to say, the Court of first instance and the lower appellate Court, found that the plaintiff was still joint with the defendants, although the plaintiff was living and having his food separately from the defendants. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal by the defendants.