BAL KRISHNA Vs. RAM KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which these consolidated appeals arise was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Banda on 4 May 1925, by one Lal Man, praying for a partition of joint family properties. The family of which he claimed to be an undivided member consisted originally of himself and his three brothers, Kanhaiya Lal, Hazari Lal and Gulzari Lal, Lal Man being the eldest of the four and the karta of the family. They were admittedly governed by the Mitakshara law. The properties of which partition was claimed consisted mainly of the assets of a family money lending business, and certain houses and land.

(2.) Kanhaiya Lal died some time prior to 1907, and Hazari Lal in 1908, but their stocks were adequately represented by their sons. Gulzari Lal died childless in 1920. Lal Man was the last survivor of the brothers and claimed by his plaint to be entitled to a one-third share of the family properties. He had no male issue but only sons of a daughter, who would, of course, be outside the joint family. Lal Man died pending the trial before the Subordinate Judge, and his grandsons were brought on the record as his heirs and continued the proceedings, which they would no doubt be entitled to do on the theory that he was separate at the time of his death. It will be convenient in this judgment to refer to Lal Man and his grandsons as the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendants to the suit were the male descendants of Kanhaiya Lal and Hazari Lal. Their main defences were (1) that Lal Man had separated from the rest of the family in 1907, and (2) that he had received his share in full. This story which has been for the most part accepted by both the Courts in India, was that Lal Man, being anxious to provide for his daughter's family, separated in 1907 from his brothers and nephews and made over sums of money and certain items of immovable property to his grandsons, these being taken as the equivalent of his one fourth share of the joint estate. These dispositions were evidenced by entries in the family books by which Lal Man declared himself to be the owner of a one-fourth share of the properties, and that he was making these gifts to his daughter's family out of that share.