CHHABBU LAL Vs. RAM CHANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an interesting and difficult question. Chhabbu Lal, the plaintiff, sued his cousin, Ram Chandar, and the two sons of Ram Chandar for partition of the joint family property. The parties are descended from a common ancestor, Ganga Prasad, who was a pragwal. The family property consisted of land, houses and birt jajmani. The defendants admitted that the family had been joint and that the plaintiff was entitled to partition but pleaded that a partition had, in fact, already taken place and that a suit would not lie for a second partition. With regard to the birt jajmani the defendants pleaded that, it had already been partitioned in the only way in which partition was possible, that is to say, it had been agreed to divide the income. In this appeal we are only concerned with two items: (1) a certain house built on land bounded by the letters B.C.H.E. on the map on the record and (2) the birt jajmani. Dealing with the second item first, the trial court held that it was impossible to give a decree for partition of this birt jajmani and gave a declaration to the effect that the parties were entitled to enjoy the income of it half and half.

(2.) The plaintiff appealed, and the learned District Judge held that the birt jajmani was property which had been held to be heritable, and, therefore, should be capable of division. He said: There may be a little difficulty in arriving at a fair division, but that is after all a matter of procedure and the difficulty cannot be said to amount to an impossibility. When steps are taken consequent on the preliminary decree, care will be taken to make the division as far as possible either by distribution of clients or of localities.

(3.) And he modified the decree of the court below by ordering that partition should be made of the birt jajmani as well as of the other property.