LAWS(PVC)-1921-8-92

GOVINDLAL BANSILAL Vs. BANSILAL MOTILAL

Decided On August 05, 1921
GOVINDLAL BANSILAL Appellant
V/S
BANSILAL MOTILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Pratt dismissing an application by the first defendant in the suit for leave to file an additional written statement. The suit was filed in 1917 by Bansilal Motilal, the father of the first defendant, asking for a declaration that all the properties in the hands of Motilal Shivlal at his death were ancestral joint family properties, and passed on his death by survivorship to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. I to 5 and defendants Nos. 8 and 9, and 1hat all the properties in British India might be partitioned amongst the plaintiff and the other members of the joint family entitled thereto by and under the directions of this Hon ble Court. Clause 11 of the plaint is as follows: The first defendant resides and part of the properties both moveable and immoveable are situte and the cause of action has arisen in Bombay within the jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court and the plaintiff submits that, with leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, this Hon ble Court will have jurisdiction to try the suit and to order partition of all the joint family properties situate in British India.

(2.) Leave was granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) The first defendant in filing his written statement in Clause 12 said: This defendant submits that as the condition precedent to any portion of the joint ancestral properties situate or lying in British India being given to the plaintiff towards his share, he may be ordered to bring into hotchpot all the properties in his possession at Hyderabad and to account for the same. This defendant submits that if either on account of the professed inability of the plaintiff or otherwise the said Hyderabad properties car not be brought into hotchpot the portion of the said joint family properties should be so effected as to allot to the plaintiff and the eighth defendant (should she be held entitled to a share) for their respective shares properties of sufficient value out of those situate and lying at Hyderabad.