RAM NARAIN CHAUDHRY Vs. MT PAN KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are consolidated appeals from four decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 30 January 1929, which reversed two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Patna, dated 26 February 1927. The original appellant, Ram Narain Chaudry, was plaintiff in the two suits in which these decrees were made and which were instituted by him in 1924, but he has recently died and the present appellants are his personal representatives. The main question, which is common to both suits, is whether the original appellant was entitled to succeed to the whole estate of Ram Kishore Chaudry, who died on 27 August 1917, or otherwise to one-half thereof. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties concerned : Gayanandan Chaudhry, who was the common ancestor of Ram Narain, the original appellant, and Ram Kishore, had six sons, of whom the four appearing in the pedigree in 1887 formed a joint Hindu family. Of the remaining two, who do not so appear, one had separated from the family before that date and the other had died without issue. In 1887 a partition took place between Dubhri and Bidhi on the one hand and Lila and Fateh on the other hand. Bidhi died in March 1895 predeceased by his brother Dubhri. Family disputes resulted in a partition the family property being partitioned under an award dated 14 July 1896, in half shares as between Shankar on the one hand and Lal Narain and Lachmann on the other hand. The joint family at that time consisted of Shankar and his two sons, Kunj Bihari and the original appellant, and Lal Narain and Lachmann, along with the latter's son, Kishore, if then in existence. In the view that their Lordships take, it is unnecessary to decide whether Kishore was then in existence. The appellants found on an ekrarnama or agreement between Shankar, Lal Narain and Lachmann, made in July 1896, the genuineness and effect of which is in dispute and which will be referred to later.

(2.) In 1908 there was a partition between Lal Narain and Lachmann, and Lal Narain died in September 1909, leaving his widow, Mt. Pan Kuer, respondent 1 in these appeals, and three daughters, but no son. Lachmann obtained possession of Lal Narain's estate to the exclusion of the widow and daughters, although he subsequently made some provision for the widow. Lachmann died in April 1912, and his estate devolved on his only son, Ram Kishore. As already stated, the last-named died in August 1917, and the present dispute arose as to the succession to his estate. It is sufficient to state that the three main contestants were Ram Narain, the original appellant, who claimed the entirety by survivorship under an alleged reunion between him and Kishore in June 1917, or, alternatively, a moiety under the agreement of 1896; respondent 1, who claims under the will of Ram Kishore; and the heirs on intestacy of Ram Kishore, Murat Narain and Govind Prasad, the sons of Lila Chand and Fateh Chand, respectively. The genuineness of Ram Kishore's will is no longer challenged, and the only question now is whether its operation is excluded by an alleged reunion, between Ram Narain and Ram Kishore, or, otherwise, by the provisions of the agreement of 1896.

(3.) As presented to their Lordships, the appellants' claim was based on two alternative grounds, viz., Basanta Kumar Singha V/s. Jogendra Nath Singha, (1905) 33 Cal 371 that, in virtue of a reunion between Ram Narain and Ram Kishore, which took place a short time before his death, their estates had become joint, and that, on Ram Kishore's death without male issue, Ram Narain became entitled to the whole joint estate by survivance, or, alternatively, (2) that he was entitled, under the provisions of the agreement of 1896, to one half of the estate, his brother being entitled to the other half. On the first point their Lordships agree with the decision of the High Court that, even assuming the reunion of 1917 to have been established in fact, it was inoperative in law, as Ram Narain and Ram Kishore were not within the class of relationship to which reunion is limited under the Mitakshara Law, which rules the present case. The passage in the Mitakshara, Ch. II, S. 9, paras. 2 and 3, is thus translated by Colebrooke : . Effects which have been divided and which are again mixed together are termed reunited. He to whom such appertain is a reunited parcener. 3. That cannot take place with any person indifferently, but only with a father, a brother or a paternal uncle, as Brihaspati declares: He who being once separated dwells again through affection with his father, brother or paternal uncle is termed reunited."