JADAVBAI LAKHICHAND Vs. MULTANCHAND HARAKHCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Hasraj had four sons, Fulchand, Lakhi-chand, Harakehand and Chunilal. Fulchand passed a Farkhafc in 1904 to his father, which was in effect a partition deed. In 1907, the remaining three sous also passed Farkhats to their father, which were in effect documents of partition. Chunilal died about 1907 leaving no heirs and we are not concerned with his estate. Harakehand died in 1912 leaving his son, the plaintiff. Fulchand died in 1916 leaving a widow. Then Hasraj died in February 1918 and Lakhichand died on March 22, 1918, leaving a widow.

(2.) Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to the suit property on the ground that he remained joint with his grand-father after His father Harakehand had separated. He made an alternative claim that if he did not remain joint with Harakchaml, lie was entitled to the property left by Hasraj because he inherited it with his uncle Lakhichand and he became entitled to the whole by survivorship on Lakhichand's death.

(3.) The plaintiff has succeeded in the lower Court. We do not think that on the facts the learned Judge realised the true legal position. Fulchaud separated in 1904. The Judge held that he re-united with Hasraj sometime before 1907, because in the Farkhat passed by Harakchand to his father, Fulchand was a party and Harakchand said that Hasraj and Fulchand were joint. It is an undoubted fact that Fulchand became separated in 1904, and therefore in my opinion a mere statement by Harakchand that in 1907 Fulchand and Hasraj were joint was not by itself sufficient to prove re-union. It might be a strong corroboration of any direct evidence that Fulchand and Hasraj reunited. Therefore Tulchand's widow is entitled to the property, if any, which Fulchand received when he separated. If the widow demands it there must be an enquiry whether any of the suit property belonged to Fulchand.